Posted on 02/13/2007 10:25:55 AM PST by NormsRevenge
New York City before Rudy was an aging courtesan. Visiting New York City was a trip to a third-world country that had become so by choice.
Times-Square was disgusting . . . full of the sort of raunchy shops that the morally stunted think are adult. Much of the city smelled of urine and I could hear gun shots in the distance walking back to my rooms . . . not once but often in my short trips to pre-Rudy New York.
It was obvious why people stayed in New York City, even loved her, but it was a dying, even fetid, beauty . . . and I was sorry to be too late to fall for her. I remember thinking, “She must have been something once.”
When I visited New York City post-Rudy, I could not believe the difference. Times-Square was fun again . . . and the entire City was cleaner, vibrant, and was young. . . nor was the change cosmetic surgery, because the City has continued to be vibrant long after Rudy left.
Obviously, Giuliani had not been responsible for all this miracle, but leaders deserve credit and Giuliani led by making the tough decisions. He led and the results were good for traditionalists. He made the City better for families, of all colors, and the voters have never looked back.
On the day of 9/11 and the immediate after-math, Rudy Giuliani was masterful and he has been sound on the War . . . the single most important issue of our time.
The Mayor is smart, a great speaker, and will be able to raise buckets of money. He can also win by putting many blue states in play.
Rudy is no Lincoln Chafee . . . he is the sort of “left-of-center” Republican I personally admire . . . up to a point.
Despite this, I certainly will not vote for Rudy Giuliani in the primaries and I am not sure I could do it in the general election. My presidential vote just might stay at home (the Republic will survive!).
Why?
First, New York City is not the United States . . . as shocking as this news might be to my friends who live in the Big Apple. The brash and by-the-throat style that worked well in the tabloid consuming subways is not the proper style for the White House . . .
In ancient times, when Rome was in a mess, they would call in a strong man . . . a Roman dictator to straighten out the problems before sending him home. New York City was rotting in the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off . . . the economy is sound and the War is still winnable.
Giuliani is an ambitious man, all men who run for the Presidency are ambitious men, but his is the sort of raw ambition that does not sit well with me so close to power in war time. He wants to be president too openly . . . to much. Rudy Giuliani does not have the personality to lead the whole nation. I don’t think he would wear well and bluntly I fear such ambition untempered by any ideology or religion so close to power.
Second, Rudy Giuliani has a philosophy in his personal life that is antithetical to the American tradition. Giuliani has secular-elite morality . . . more libertine than conservative. Can traditionalists trust his basic impulses?
What do I mean? Nobody can anticipate the challenges a President will face . . . remember 9/11 and George Bush. Gay marriage was not the issue it became in 2000. How will a man react to new challenges? His personal life philosophy is a good measure.
Rudy Giuliani’s personal life indicates that in any new challenge his deepest predispositions will be hostile to traditionalists.
When he does not need our votes, he will forget us utterly. He has no friends in our camp or memories that can stir him to sympathy with our point of view.
A comparison with another blue-state Republican might help make what I am saying plain.
Mitt Romney is a Republican who has often taken “wrong positions” on important issues. . . changed his mind . . . and grown as all statesmen do. I don’t agree with him on all the “issues.” This I know about Romney: he has friends who are very conservative, family who is very conservative, and is a traditionalist in his religious view of the world. His deepest and first impulse will be to understand the American tradition . . . not to innovate.
Given the quick changes that happen in American politics, a man’s fundamental view of the world (secular/progressive or traditionalist/Burkean) is more important to me than the way he answers issues.
Romney disappointed “liberal Republicans” in Massachusetts by governing as a conservative . . . he did not mean to deceive in his answers to the overly tight questions of a campaign . . . it is just the actual demands of office are never like the neat check boxes of campaign position lists. (”Are you for legal abortion?” told us nothing of what Romney would do about stem cells.)
I don’t trust Giuliani to be our friend when the new issues arise . . . as they surely will.
Finally, Giuliani is on the side of what the blessed Pope John Paul the Great called the “culture of death.” As a secularist (whatever his claimed religion), he views life and death as in the hands of men. Instead of our right to life being secured by God as our Declaration of Independence says, he would negotiate it or leave it to the whims of Courts. Rudy Giuliani will not even pretend to be in favor of traditional American views on the sanctity of life . . . and if a politician will not even pander on an issue, you know he means it . . . really means it.
Rudy Giuliani would be the first open culture-of-death candidate to receive the Republican nomination since the Reagan Revolution. He would shatter the pro-life Republican presidential monolith that provided key margins in so many states.
Against another pro-culture-of-death candidate (like Hilary!) perhaps Rudy Giuliani would get my vote as the lesser of two evils, but without enthusiasm and with little support.
Or I might stay at home, waste my vote on a protest candidate, and wait for better days.
The fact that a Republican such as I (in a family Republican since Lincoln) would consider this . . . is a bad sign.
The realistic candidates for President on the Republican side at the moment are Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. Only these three have the money, broad support, and chance of winning to make it all the way . . . unless someone else shows up or one of them falters there is simply not room in the media mind for more than three candidates.
McCain is faltering . . . aging before our eyes and struggling to raise money. I know of nobody who wants him . . . and his polling may simply be name recognition. I think him the most likely to vanish in a puff of smoke.
If he fades, then who? Nobody has the money to fill the gap . . . or the charisma. I challenge anyone to name an electable Republican with money raising prowess who in now in the race outside of the Big Three.
Newt? Get real. Democrats might as well nominate Ted Kennedy.
Newt may be popular with some Republicans, but my wife turns off the television any time he appears. She really, really dislikes him. If you cannot carry Hope’s vote, then you cannot win!
Giuliani has much dirty linen, but the media likes his kind of secret and will protect him (as it can) the way it protected Clinton. He will be a player to the end.
Romney? He is far and away the best of the three . . . and it may be coming down to voting for the traditionalist of the heart who swears he has learned some things over time over two men (Giuliani and McCain) who lack the temperament to be in the White House.
…most of Clintons Policies are very similar to most of mine... Rudy Giuliani 1996
I’ve said that I’ll uphold a woman’s right to choice, that I will fund abortions so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right others can exercise… Rudy Giuliani 1989.
On Gun Control This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed... Rudy Giuliani 2000 after filing suit against gun makers and distributors.
On Gun Control We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions-and really stronger ones-that exist for driving an automobile... Rudy Giuliani 1997
And I should care what this author thinks because?.........
I don't know John Mark Reynolds, but I'm in complete agreement with this article.
John Mark Reynolds is an idiot. I certainly will not vote for Giuliani in the primary, but if he wins the nomination, then a failure to vote for him is the exact same thing as a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Mussolini "made the trains run on time," too.
That doesn't mean that it is impossible to make trains run on time without fascism.
Nor is it impossible to have a Republican nominee who can win who isn't a leftist in so many important ways.
---"Honestly, our Republic would be safer under 4 terrible years of Hillary than with Rudy at the helm."---
I would be among those who would never vote Rudy, and would prefer to suffer Hillary and start over with a less untra-ultra-ultra-Liberal candidate in 2012.
Yes, and we 'survived' the Great depression, and we 'survived' WWII and we will also 'survive' the Clinton II administration.
But there sure will be a lot of hell to pay in doing so.
Given the choice (vs. Hillary), Rudy has my vote.
(Against my better instincts, I'll bite.)
Now why would that be??
You are in denial if you think Beast would be the lesser of two evils.
Romney will win the presidency.
"The end" being right after the nomination, when the MSM "discovers" that history. Rudy will take the dive right on cue.
Hillary will pull our troops out of Iraq the first chance she gets, and then spend four years ignoring terrorism. We may end up with gay marriage under Giuliani (just like we DEFINITELY would under Clinton), but he well most likely be just as strong or stronger than Bush on foreign policy.
This is a highly persuasive article. There's a lot I like about Rudy Giuliani. I was working in New York for the past 35 years, and I witnessed first hand what he describes in the opening paragraphs. Giuliani did, indeed, turn the city around, and he did it in the face of a hostile press and massive vested interests.
I have been saying that if he pledged himself to a positive position on the life issues, I could support him. But I have my doubts, and this article reinforces those doubts.
I'm afraid he is right that there are only three realistic candidates in view, and likely that will be the position still a year from now. And McCain is simply not an acceptable candidate. That appears to leave Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani as the only plausible choices. Which of them is more trustworthy? Which of them can be counted on not to betray the base? It's a hard question. Giuliani is honest and open. But I would agree that he lacks the traditional religious background that Mitt Romney brings with him. I'd prefer a Catholic to a Mormon, but it would have to be a real Catholic, and it's not at all clear that Giuliani qualifies.
Divorce, for instance. It's not an insuperable barrier, but he's on his third wife and as far as I know is barred from receiving communion. I haven't heard anything about annulments.
You need to be in a third party. I think the Whigs have a branch office in Rome Georgia.
I think Rudy's impulses on 'new' issues of statecraft will be just fine
You need to be in a third party.
President Giuliani would be the end of a certain sort of American "exceptionalism"; the end of a long era of a "City on a Hill" view of Presidential purpose, if we choose Giuliani we would be opting for a very "European" sort of leader, chosen with little concern for his personal life on pragmatic and perhaps even cynical grounds.
Rudy just said that Ronald Reagan was his hero 6-7 times in his speech yesterday, I severly doubt that.
A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.
A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.
I especially enjoyed this part.
First, New York City is not the United States . . . as shocking as this news might be to my friends who live in the Big Apple.
NYCity had lots of problems that were unique to the Big Apple alone. But they weren't major social issues that effect the entire nation. 70% of NYCity voters are registered Democrats. They don't give a rats arse about the key social issues. They don't care about stopping abortion, allowing more gun rights, less gay rights or stopping illegals from entering the US. And neither does Rudy.
Rudy did a good job as Mayor by NYCity standards, but cleaning up Times Square, eliminating the squeegee-men, arresting public urinators and catching turnstile jumpers are not the issues that conservative activists will be judging candidates on in the GOP primaries.
Rudy`s political positions on the major social issues will be what conservative activists will be judging him on. And Rudy`s stances on the social issues remain in lockstep with liberal Democrats like Hillary Clitnon, Algore, John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy.
If people want to ignore Rudy`s liberal record and his lifetime of support for liberal causes, they're free to do so. But it won't stop me from speaking out about how wrong Rudy is for America. In the end, I'm confident conservatives wil reject Rudy as the GOP nominee.
IMHO the jury is still out as to whether or not we'll survive the damage done in the first 8 yrs. that a Clinton held the Presidency.
Comments?
"Nor is it impossible to have a Republican nominee who can win who isn't a leftist in so many important ways."
Then trot him out. He will by now have the money, name recognition and poll numbers to prove how numerous and powerful conservatives are.
Or could it be conservative sentiments are spread all around, a little here and a little there?
Not trying to a smart-aleck - I honestly don't know how to read that.
Do you mean:
1) Rudy is lying, Reagan is not his hero.
2) My view in the post you are responding to in incorrect: Reagan is Rudy's hero, and Rudy will try to be another Reagan.
3) Something else?
I think this guy's gonna turn out just like Arnold.
I have to say, economically, I'd rather spend the first few years of my upcoming marriage and probable future children under Rudy than Hillary. I'd rather have a solid job and decent economy to support my family under, than a bunch of tax increases and Marxism threatening our well-being as Hillary tries to make us her dependent subjects.
Ah, yes...that's what we need...a leader with more nuance.
In the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off.
Better we elect a wimp with no spine.
He wants to be president too openly . . . to much. Rudy Giuliani does not have the personality to lead the whole nation.
Can't have a president with too much ambiion either. Much better to elect a "can't we just all get along" candidate.
I'm not saying I will vote for Rudy, but some of the author's reasoning is lame.
So if I don't vote for Hillary Clinton, is that the same as a vote for Rudy? Even though I would never vote for either?
Interesting this liberal Republican is so enamored of Romney - another politician who is more than willing to believe anything he thinks will make him more electable rather than Giuliani.
He's right about McCain.
Hopefully he will be right about Giuliani and wrong about Romney.
All three of these "leaders" have been picked by the leftwing media as the candidates of choice and supported by the Mehlmans and Roves and Eisenbergs and other leftists who created the 2006 catastrophe.
I'm sorry his wife finds Gingrich so repugnant. I'm not impressed by his geneology. Nor does his position as a university professor move me - they live in their own worlds separate from the realtiy of mere mortals.
Unless someone is nominated who will appeal to the Republican core - someone who opposes the invasion of America by illegal aliens, someone who recognizes Constitutional rights - including the Second Amendment, someone who believes killing unborn babies is unacceptabel in a civilized society, someone who adheres to traditional American values of right and wrong, someone who knows that the way to fight a war is to win it, kill the enemy and then get out, the Republican base will do what it did so well in 2006 - sit home or vote third party.
Only Hunter or Gingrich can possibly move the masses of Republicans and just patriotic independent Americans to vote for a Republican.
My thoughts exactly.
Then one of the two parties needs to put forth a candidate that doesn't repel a large segment of voters. The GOP runs Rudy for president at their own peril.
Not according to those who write the history books. Clinton is not responsible for anything that happened after Jan 19, 2001.
And Hillary! doesn't want the job unless we force her into it, right.
Hogwash! Not when both parties choose to run a liberal candidate. You're deadwrong. I believe every American has a duty to vote. An obligation to vote. But NOT voting for a liberal like Rudy, should he somehow get the nomination, would be a matter of personal conscience and integrity of principle. Something most conservatives learn by the time we become of voting age. With some folks it takes longer. With you, looks like it might never happen.
Btw, I've been a loyal Republican my whole life. I expect to be voting for a conservative in the Colorado primary and the general election. That means Rudy won't even be an issue come election day 2008.
I'd have a lot more trouble voting for Romney than I would for Rudy. While it would seem that Romney is more conservative than Giuliani, his record in office isn't.
Giuliani said last week "I'm against abortion but I must uphold Roe v. Wade." This is the classic pro-abortion political statement.
NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion savages clapped their hands with glee knowing that Rudy is STILL on their side, and has been from the very beginning.
From the FEC database: 04/24/1999 Donations
NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC
NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999.
NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
NARAL gave $1000---4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.
Clearly, NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, even more than NARAL trusted Hillary.
Rudy was the honored guest speaker and made The Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Luncheon few years back.
In a CNN interview, Giuliani indicated he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." Giuliani also indicated he would have upheld President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.
"Maybe" Rudy offered women "other options" to abortion but Rudy told Phil Donahue he'd give his daughter the money for an abortion (to get rid of his own grandchild).
Whatever Rudy may "say" about abortion is merely b/c he discovered he needs pro-lifers to make a showing.
Rudy is joined at the hip to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-on-demand with the govt picking up the tab crowd. No way will they allow Rudy to move anywhere but forward to expand abortion to unknown dimensions. Partial birth abortion? If you elect Rudy, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.
Pro-lifers should treat Rudy EXACTLY as he treats unborn children------as a disposable nuisance.
The author told you why you should care what he thinks. Did you actually read what he wrote? If so, why not respond with why you agree or disagree with his conclusions?
For a professor, he sure does make some bonehead grammatical mistakes.
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.