Give me a Freaking break and keep the hyperbole in this Galaxy, will ya, sheesh.
Teddy Roosevelt
Rudy Julie-Annie
Sorry, a TR he ain't.
Posted on 02/08/2007 7:43:13 AM PST by bilhosty
Rudy Giuliani's announcement that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination brings to my mind a book I wrote in the early 1990s, "The Conservative Crack-Up." When I wrote the book, Ronald Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush, was ignoring many of the constituent ingredients of the Reagan Revolution, for instance, tax cuts. The various factions of the conservative coalition were disgruntled and threatening to take a walk. Once again liberal pundits were diagnosing the conservative movement as moribund.
Ever since the conservative movement's ascendancy within the Republican Party in 1964, these grim diagnoses have been handed down episodically. Every time there is dissatisfaction among conservatives or they suffer some electoral setback, the liberal pundits step forward and pronounce the modern conservative movement at death's door. In my book I ventured the witticism that "conservatism is America's longest dying political movement."
By 1994 and the arrival of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," it became apparent that the movement was not dead but rather on its way to palmy days. This was what I anticipated in "The Conservative Crack-Up," where I was careful to note that though the movement embraces contending factions, they all
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
((((PING))))
Rudy's service as mayor didn't translate into conservative policy in general in New York, nor did it result in Republican ascendancy in the political sphere. He and Arnold are two of a kind - RINOs. I know you won't like or appreciate this statement, but it is true nonetheless. We really have to do better than Rudy. I won't repeat the litany of the many issues which he is off the reservation on - I'll just say that he's no Ronald Reagan. The rest of America isn't going to like having the choice between two New York liberals, no matter whether they have a D or an R behind their names.
Isn't this a duplicate post?
Interesting Rudy's financial people are from the conservative-libertarian Manhattan Institute and he conducted his mayoral duties in NYC following the policy.
Autheor goes on to state that Rudy repressed NYC's nanny state when he was elected.
Oops! Yes it is. Oh by the way I'm still trying to find that info for you. I can't believe they deleted it - I'm looking for another source. He was in Herndon yesterday speaking at the Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce's 12th annual Awards Gala. They interviewed him and he said he was thinking of running again.
I cannot remember who pointed out the fact, but it was a very telling one. In dozens of opportunities to appoint judges in NYC, Rudy never appointed one Republican. With the Judiciary trashing the constitution and American culture, as well, we need someone who knows how precious those appointment opportunities are.
I live in NYC and voted for Rudy both times I was eligible to do so. I was never even tempted to vote for the Conservative candidate (I did vote Conservative against Bloomberg -- but only when I was certain that Bloomberg would win). Rudy was the single-best mayor of my lifetime, and I go back to the late 1950s. My brother moved out of town about 2 years into Rudy's first term and, when he came back to visit a couple of months later, he noticed the difference. The city was cleaner and more efficient. Rudy is no John Lindsay.
That's simply not true. Yes, Rudy was very liberal in his talk on some issues, notably abortion. But he didn't DO anything liberal during his time in office.
Arnold came in when California was in a mess, and he has worked very hard to make it worse. He has spent money like a drunken sailor, and he has DONE things like support taxpayer funded fetal stem cell research that Rudy never did.
Rudy came in when the city was a total mess, the budget was a shambles, there were riots in Brooklyn, the police were forbidden to do their jobs, and crime was rampant. He fixed the budget, he fixed the criminal problem, he got the drug addicts off the streets and the waiting room benches, he renewed the tourist industry, and although he continued to talk like a pro-abort he never did anything to further abortion.
I worked in New York under mayors Lindsay, Beam, Koch, Dinkins, and Giuliani. Koch was a decent mayor despite being a liberal, but Giuliani was a great mayor, and not just on the one occasion of 9/11.
The abortion angle makes me nervous, but he never did anything to actually push abortion--unlike Bloomberg and unlike Arnold.
TR would have called Rudy a "sissy," punched his lights out, and then gone big game hunting.
I am for urban reform. That's where all of our problems are.
I have said it before on this forum and I will say it again; Rudy’s performance on 9/11 was spectacular and truly great.
However, having said that, there is a defining moment in his history that truly makes him a leader and not a manager. Yassar Arafat was visiting the UN and going to present a speech. He was attending a show in NYC after he had been identified as the head of a terrorist organization. In defiance of the entire Clinton administration and all of the phony cronies in that gaggle of cowards, Rudy had Arafat escorted out of the theater and back to his hosting Embassy and restricted to that Embassy and the UN.
When the ensuing hue and cries went up to feverish pitch, Rudy calmly stated that terrorists are not allowed to be on the streets of his town. When the State Department (the old hag Madeline (NOT AT) Albright, the UN fraud (Kofi), and all of the other offended parties were calling for his head; Rudy calmly restated his rule and all of the petty little cowards backed off in the face of a Leader confident in speaking the truth based on a solid sense of values.
Lord, spare me from electing a Manager” to run my country. Let me elect a leader and have him hire the right management staff.
Rant away folks.
Yep...still waiting for that one.
Also curious as to how this Northeastern city slicker intends to deal with those of us in flyover country. Does he realize that law-abiding people own guns, too?
Give me a Freaking break and keep the hyperbole in this Galaxy, will ya, sheesh.
Sorry, a TR he ain't.
Looks pretty Conservative to me! The best and brightest of Republican circles are part of his campaign and they are conservatives. Think everyone had a wake-up call in 2006 that we need to reach out and grow our Party. When you cannot count on any group not to vote, you have to take action to find new voters.
Think one problem I see is that this site has a larger ratio of social conservatives the the Republican Party as a whole. Most of us supporting Rudy come out the Conservative GOP but our primary issues are not social issues. We look for a leader who will stand up on the WOT, be strong on defense, is for less taxes and smaller government and will appointed judges who rule on the law not make new laws.
My sense is that a lot of us feel that social issues belong in the home, church, community and on rare instances at the state level when you vote on something like marriage between a man and a woman. We do not believe that social issues belong at the federal government level. Because of that, we will support a candidate for President who espouses our views on issues that are federal issues.
GOP Conservatives would never threaten to stay home and not vote -- that is against everything we believe in as Conservative Republicans who have donated countless hours to elect Conservative Republicans. I have one Senator whose primary focus is on defense and environmental policies to insure that defense is fully funded and the environmental wackos don't take over. My second Senator is all about ending earmarks and cutting pork spending. Neither one of them ran for office as a social conservative but as a CONSERVATIVE Republican.
My two cents this morning!
I couldn't have said it better.
Thanks, PKM!
Rudy said what he was going to do, and then did it.
This is so unusual in politicians that we can't really find an analagous candidate.
Everybody goes on and on about 9/11 (and Rudy was great), but it's what he did from 1/93-8/01 that seals the deal for me.
Sharpton, Maddox, NYCLU, all the scumbag commies in the tristate area - they foam at the mouth at the mention of his name.
"... He and Arnold are 2 of a kind - ..."
Obviously, you didn't read the article. Here is a tidbit - and if you can find Arnold there (except in the fake setting of movies) let me know:
"Well, one knows a politician by the company he keeps, and Mr. Giuliani has around him the financial people who created the libertarian-conservative Manhattan Institute. He relied heavily on the institute's policies while governing New York. He will rely on libertarian-conservative policy makers in his race for the White House and once there.
One also knows a political leader by the action he takes. As mayor, Mr. Giuliani took on the nanny state that city government had become, reducing the dependency that had one in seven New Yorkers living off government support. As for New York's huge welfare rolls, he more than halved them and had more than 100,000 welfare recipients finding work annually by 1999. He cleaned up the crime-ridden streets, cutting crime by 64% and murder by 67%. By cutting spending and taxes, he turned an economic basket case into an economic marvel. In eight years he reduced or extinguished 23 taxes. Every year he was in office, New York City's economy grew faster than the nation's.
Then came September 11 and he displayed to the nation the traits he had so successfully displayed in reviving his city. He was decisive, efficient, prudent, and — something only those at his side in Gracie Mansion already knew — brave. After the first plane struck the World Trade Center, he instantly rushed to the scene. Arriving just after the second plane hit he re-established governance nearby as the towers came down. He was in genuine peril but coolly oversaw the rescue work and communication with the outside world."
Arnold cannot even touch Rudy's accomplishments.
Clue: NEW YORK ISN'T CONSERVATIVE .. so "Rudy's service as mayor didn't translate into conservative policy ..." seems very logical. He still got more things done than just standing on conservative principles would have accomplished.
"We look for a leader who will stand up on the WOT, be strong on defense, is for less taxes and smaller government and will appointed judges who rule on the law not make new laws."
and
"We do not believe that social issues belong at the federal government level. "
You have summed up the true conservative stance.
There are lots of people who claim to be conservatives but actually they want to control people's lives just like the liberals. Those are the ones that won't vote for someone like Rudy.
I saw the greatest picture of Teddy Roosevelt not long ago....maybe part of the photo spread from a recent bio of him....very glary sunny day, he is sitting on a simple chair in an open doorway of a very basic looking wooden shack deep in the woods, looking down into his lap, muddy boots, and best of all, pants that were thoroughly tattered at the bottom, and a rifle alongside him. Delightful. No photo-op, this picture, he looked like any other tail-end-of-the-Wild-West cowboy.
If you don't believe in letting cowboys keep their revolvers then you are not a conservative. Rudy is Mr. Gun Control. He is not a conservative.
Name one judge Rudy has appointed in the mold of Scalia or Thomas or Roberts in his entire tenure as Mayor.
Which is why he has gone out of his way to say he personally detests abortion...and that he'll leave it to the judges and that he'd appoint judges similar to Roberts and Alito. I don't know what else he can do to allay conservatives fears.
---"Which is why he has gone out of his way to say he personally detests abortion"---
So does every other Democrat
---"...and that he'll leave it to the judges and that he'd appoint judges similar to Roberts and Alito."---
There is absolutely no reason to believe he'd do so. His record is 100% the opposite on judges, and he holds Roe v. Wade as sacrosanct.
--"I don't know what else he can do to allay conservatives fears."---
Drop out now. That would help. Otherwise Conservatives always fear Liberal activists; that's just the way it is.
They sure foam at the mouth and that makes me convinced that Rudy is a threat to them and Ms. Clinton which makes my day!
Exactly! You have stated it perfectly!
R. Emmett Tyrell likes Rudy! Tell me again how Rudy isn't a conservative?
There are lots of people who claim to be conservatives but actually they want to control people's lives just like the liberals. Those are the ones that won't vote for someone like Rudy.
Exactly! You have stated it perfectly!
Those who want to control the minutae of people's lives are LIBERALS!!!
You're being illogical again, Titan.
Rudy says he does not think Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.
He supports states making laws about abortions, no the federal government.
Your argument that support for states deciding about abortion is, in fact, support for the Supreme Court deciding about abortion, is illogical.
Please try to think this through. I know you can do it.
Precisely so.
I think that these people are the true RINOs.
I have stated very clearly what I and others believe a Conservative to be as did the Contract with America where you will not find social issues.
What you are seeing here and across America are Conservative Republicans now standing up and saying that social issues belong in our homes, our churches, our communities and occasionally at the state level, but not at the national level. We stand strong on issues that affect the security of our Nation and expect the judges to rule on the law not make law nationally. Those are conservative principles that I have been adhereing to since I was a teenager and walked doors for Barry Goldwater.
Those of us Conservatives who worked hard and long to take over the Senate and the House over the years are angry at those one issue voters that gave us the DemocRATs because some Republican didn't meet their standards. Because of the debacle of 2006 and the hissy fit that was thrown even on here, we have to reach out to voters who will vote and not throw a fit.
What galls me the most is that people from States with liberal Reps and Senators are some of the ones calling some of us not Conservative. That is a bunch of Bravo Sierra because we have worked long hours in our States to elect Republican Conservatives to the House and Senate.
As my Congressman likes to say that when he is elected he then represents all of the people in the Congressional District just not Republicans. He is right -- he is sent to D.C. to represent us in his district which happens to be Conservative. Here is the oath every member of Congress takes:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."No where in the oath does it say I will only support Republican or Conservative constituents and why some of you get so upset. If a Congressman/Senator is not voting like his district or states want, then he will be ousted. In 2006, the one issue types managed to throw out some good Conservatives with their temper tantrum because they didn't get all they wanted from the Congress.
Anyone involved in politics that thinks they are going to get everything they want from a candidate or office holder is not facing reality unless you happen to luck out and have two Senators like mine and a terrific Congressman. I agree with them about 98% or more of the time which is highly unusual. That is the exception not the norm.
That's how I feel as a Conservative and all of you anti-Rudy people can throw arrows and call us RINO's and any other name but we vote in every election, sometimes hold our noses, don't vote 3rd Party, and support candidates that can beat the DemocRATs. Standing on principle with a candidate that cannot beat the DemocRATs in the Presidential race is a dangerous move IMHO. All so you can pat yourselves on the back and claim a moral victory. Moral victories don't protect this Nation, don't cut taxes, don't give us smaller government, and don't give us judges that will rule on the law not make laws. Moral victories give us liberal DemocRATs!
Now your side can hit abuse and want me tossed off because I don't walk in lockstep on here like you have been doing to Rudy supporters. I have never have and never will walk in lockstep because someone might call me a name if I don't or threaten to have me banned -- I think for myself. I know I am a Conservative and will stand for principles I believe in which I have stated over and over again. Sorry (sarcasm) that a lot of us don't live up to your standards but unlike some of you, we don't expect everyone to be in lockstep with us. We want people who think, research a candidate and make up their own mind.
"I Oppose It...I Hate It...However I Believe in a Woman's Right to Choose" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
adds "the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed..."
HANNITY: .... Let's talk about the controversial issues. You will be asked about them. Where does Rudy Giuliaini stand on abortion? And do you think roe v. wade is a good law or bad law.
GIULANI: I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that is a personal matter I would advise something against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that. I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and have to respect the choice that somebody makes. So what I do say to conservatives because then you want to look at well okay what can we look to that is similar to the way you think. I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any— that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.
HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito.
GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict instruction would be probably the way I describe it.
HANNITY: Is Roe bad?
GIULIANI: I think that's up to the court to decide. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the basis for it. At this point it's precedent. It's going be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it. i think they're probably going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they'll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.
GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support
HANNITY: Parental notification.
GIULIANI: I think you have to have a judicial bypass. I think the court— I mean that's the kind of thing i think the court will do with abortion. The other thing I should emphasize is while I was the mayor there's a column just written about it, abortions in New York wept down and adoptions went way up. Because we work odd adoptions as an alternative. so it would be a real choice. So that ultimately you respect a woman's choice. But it should be a real choice. adoption or if they make that choice I don't think the criminal law can deal with it.
HANNITY: I think conservatives would be happy with choices of Roberts, Scalia and Alito but there will be a disagreement on abortions.
GIULIANI: There are always disagreements. And then some people just won't be able to vote for you. You got to live with that. Reality is you got to be who you are. You got to be honest with people. If your views change you got to be willing to express it. When I was mayor my views changed. I began as mayor thinking I could reform the school system. After four years I became an advocate of choice, of scholarships and vouchers and parental choice because I thought that was the only way to really change the school system. When I started as mayor, I didn't believe that. When I went through three or four years of experience, that's what it taught me. I think you have to be willing— you have strong ideas, strong views. but then you have to be willing to look at experience.
From Hannity and Colmes tonight. Video here.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njg5MzViOGVlODVjZWEwYzkxNDllMGY0Zjc0ZGE0OWM=
---"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"---
"...Except, of course for Amendments I don't particularly like...."
Thank you for proving exactly my point.
Rudy supports abortion, thinks Roe is good law, has been an Abortions rights activist, and has never ever said it's a state's rights issue, ever.
There are few greater enemies of the unborn in this great nation.
I agree with that that they are LIBERALS!
I think so too because we all vote all the time. The social conservatives not only co-opted the word Conservative to mean only social conservative but they co-opted Republican to mean only social conservative too. That is just mind boggling to me.
I join with you in your sentiments, PhiKapMom.
And those who want to silence people who like Rudy are NOT conservative. That's a liberal tactic, tried and true.
Grown men have pinged the mods and forum owner whining that I like Rudy! That's the entire content of their pings to the mods - that we actually like a Republican they don't like.
Somewhere, Hillary is laughing her head off.
It also means they will protect good laws and bad laws. Any candidate that is running for President that says they can get Roe v. Wade overturned is pandering. It is in the Courts not the legislative branch.
Rudy stated very clearly he will protect the 2nd amendment which is in the Constitution. This man is a prosecutor who believes in the Constitution. You all are making him out to be something he is not. Read how judges are nominated and appointed in NY. That's comparing apples and oranges. Read about what he did on gun control -- had his cops frisk down criminals and take their guns. These were not law abiding citizens that had a gun in their nightstand for protection. Too many times on here apples and oranges are mixed up and hard to see the facts for the noise.
I am not asking you to support Rudy for President what I am saying that he is not a liberal like some of you are saying. No one that supports our military, WOT, smaller government, less taxes, and constructionist judges is a liberal including saying he supports the 2nd amendment.
Those are the facts!
BINGO!! I see the same thing done on Liberal sites by the Leftists. Silence anyone who disagrees with you.
Agree with you 100%! It is laughable that some of the men are the ones hitting abuse on us and wanting us gone because we support Rudy. You are right -- that is not very Conservative!
Comparing Rudy Giuliani with Teddy Roosevelt makes as much sense as comparing Princess Diana with Mother Teresa.
OK, I think I see the problem here.
You can't read things and see what's actually written, you see what you want to see. You can't hear speech and hear what's actually said, you hear what you want to hear.
Just to help you out here, Rudy said Roe v. Wade is bad law, but it's up for the Supreme Court to decide, so the only thing he can do about it is appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts and Alito.
He also supports abortion, only early stage abortion, and opposes late stage abortion, except when it's necessary to save the life of the mother.
He thinks that eventually, the Supreme Court will not totally do away with Roe v. Wade because it's established law, but will limit it, either accepting state limits or federal limits.
Now, wasn't that easy?
For many, unfortunately, complex ideas need to be reduced to sound bites before they penetrate.
They can't follow sentences that have dependent clauses and modifiers and words of many syllables, but they are too proud to admit it.
That's why successful talk show hosts do exactly that, break complex ideas into smaller bits of information.
Rudy Giuliani, a former US attorney, uses big words and complex sentence structures, and expects the listeners to grasp some of the shorthand he uses, instead of talking at their level.
He's going to have to work on that if he wants to reach a larger audience.
LOL!! I understood perfectly what he was saying! Guess there really has been a dumbing down of America where soundbites rule!
Very good explanation!
Well, on the one hand, you've got Rudy saying, "I am opposed to abortion, but support a woman's right to choose in the first trimester, and also support later term abortions to save the life of the mother."
And on the other hand you've got "Rudy is a baby-killer!"
On the one hand, you've Rudy saying, "as an executive, I will enforce the Second Amendment, but support regulations to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and support requiring gun owners to take gun safety courses."
And on the other hand, you've got "Rudy is a gun-grabber!"
On the one hand, you've got Rudy saying, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but support domestic partnerships for gay couples, and believe that homosexuals have exactly the same civil rights as heterosexuals, no less, and no more."
And on the other hand, you've got "Rudy is a fag-lover!"
I know which form of rhetoric I find more persuasive, and obviously, it's Rudy's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.