Posted on 02/13/2007 1:59:22 PM PST by meg88
Is Giuliani a conservative? He might just be
Last week C-SPAN featured a discussion about Rudolph Giuliani that left me shaking my head. The gist of the guest's message was that Giuliani was a "Rockefeller Republican" who was suddenly transformed into a darling of conservatives after 9/11. Today, Fox News echoed the same theme.
That's quite wrong. Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e. liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible.
City Journal's Steven Malanga reminds us of the details. When Giuliani was elected mayor, New York City was Exhibit A in failed liberal governance. Crime was out of control. Public spaces were marred by a combination of omnipresent graffiti; so-called "squeegee men" who preyed on motorists; and raving homeless people who took up residence on sidewalks and in building entrances. Public employee unions had shaken down the city government for years. The tax base was eroding. The city government was deeply in debt, and fully one in eight New Yorkers was on welfare.
Giuliani transformed a city whose budget and workforce were larger than those of all but five or six states. He and police chief William Bratton famously cracked down first on quality of life crimes like panhandling and public urination. Teenagers who leaped over the turnstiles at subway entrances were arrested - a departure from the practice under Mayor David Dinkins. Giuliani later quipped that the police under his predecessor had become "highly skilled observers of crime." Those turnstile jumpers turned out to possess a huge number of illegal guns, which were confiscated, and criminals throughout the city discovered that the New York police were breathing down their necks. The number of murders dropped from 1,960 in Dinkins's final year in office to 640 in Giuliani's last year. The overall crime rate dropped 64 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s.
Giuliani accomplished this in the teeth of a genuinely ferocious assault from liberals, so-called "civil rights" figures like Al Sharpton (with whom Giuliani declined to meet), the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times. Actors and artists protested in the streets, and leading chin pullers in national magazines pronounced themselves troubled by Giuliani's "tactics." He was steadfast - and the greatest beneficiaries were poor New Yorkers who lived in formerly dangerous neighborhoods.
Though he inherited a budget deficit, Giuliani declined to raise taxes on New Yorkers nearly bled white. He closed the budget gap with a combination of spending reductions (what a concept!) and modest tax cuts. Business boomed.
Giuliani attacked another sacred cow when he ended "open admissions" and remedial courses at the City University of New York. He was called lots of names by the usual suspects for this principled move. The result was to revive the university - SAT scores of incoming students rose 168 points.
New York's welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds - eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement - able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews and how to prepare a resume.
His approach toward the homeless was similar. Those who were able to work were encouraged to do so. Those who rejected an offer of shelter and insisted upon blocking public spaces and harassing passersby were issued summonses. For this Hillary Clinton lectured the mayor that Jesus was a homeless person.
There is no question that Giuliani's position on abortion and gun control will offend many Republicans. But let's be clear, he is no liberal. His conservatism has been tempered in New York City - so it is steely indeed.
Mona Charen writes for Creators Syndicate.
Rudy is not perfect, but he beats by 10 miles, ANYONE on the RAT side. What's not to understand by this?
Wow, even Mona has the hots for old elitist, gun-hating Rudy.
I hope she and the others understand that if he is nominated Hillary will be our next president.
Is Giuliani a conservative? He might just be
Well then he should come out of the closet so we can tell.
Oh my!
Just the opposite. If Newt is nominated, Hillary is President.
If Mona has to ask the question, then he isn't! Ronald Reagan is the yardstick -- if you don't measure up, then you're not a conservative.
The name is 'Giuliani'.
Sigh.
"If Newt is nominated, Hillary is President"
I agree with that statement.
However, way too many of us will never vote for Giuliani. The Republicans better come up with a viable candidate or the Pantsuit will be back in the Whitehouse digging through more FBI files.
Wow, conservative commentators are totally goo goo eyes over Rudy! This is something to behold.
I went through an interesting exercise with another Freeper last week, and based on Rudy Giuliani's well-documented track record on ten different issues I reached the conclusion that he would probably have a rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU) of about 20-25. OK -- so that's not exactly Dennis Kucinich territory . . . but it is so far from "conservative" that the author of this article has really lost a lot of credibility on this one.
Rudy is kryptonite to most of us who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. He will split the party worse than the jug-eared old fruitcake Perot.
Both Kristols are firmly in the Rudy camp.
If you judge based on governmental spending, George W. Bush has had the most liberal administration since LBJ.
Everyone has their own issues that have priority, but spending and taxes mean more to me than the social issues. And Guiliani cut taxes and spending in NYC.
How so?
"However, way too many of us will never vote for Giuliani."
The overwhelming majority of you will in the general election when you contemplate Hillary being president.
Those who say otherwise remind me of those who repeatedly insisted on this board that they would vote third party because of slights from the Republicans in Congress on immigration, spending, etc. But when the election actually rolled around no one was talking about actually voting third party.
In most cases, the "third party" threat is something which people say so that they can feel like they are in control of the process.
I will vote for any Republican who is nominated- even (God help us) McCain. The idea of seeing Hillary celebrating on election night can be very motivating.
LOL! It has webfeet, bill, feathers and quaks, but its not a duck!!! ROFL!!
Rudy is a conservative compared to the far left Democrat/Socialists. But only compared to the far left. By conservative standards Rudy is no conservative at all.
This puts conservativs' in a position to settle for a lefty but not a far-left lefty.
Remember Rudy was acceptable enough to liberal New York to get elected mayor years ago.
Why not pick a real conservative?
YES. Everyone should understnad this.
They'll just go into a state of denial and blame the true conservatives for not appeasing them and abiding by their errant wishes.
I just heard him say that he was in agreement with concealed carry, in accordance with local licensing laws.
Is Rudy a conservative? Not socially.
Rudy is still better than any RAT candidate by far. If you disagree, then name who?
I hope you understand that this position is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who reads it.
Yep, but there are those running in the primary that beat Rudy by 10 miles. I don't think conservatives should throw up their hands and just support Rudy because they think he's the only one who can beat Hillary. He isn't. (Well, he isn't as long as conservatives don't just throw up their hands.)
It's getting quite funny how much panic there is over Rudy among the Pout Crowd.
LOL EXACTLY. No conservative would ever get elected in NYC!!!! ITs ninety % hard core lib with about 5 RINO (Bloomberg).
This should tell YOU something about RUDY.
He can't win.
So WHAT? Im sooo tired of settling - look what it got us to Nov 06.
Did you look at the link I gave before asking?
Now replicate this same sentiment among a number of different people who would never vote for a candidate who supports gun control, would never vote for a candidate who has adamantly defied Federal immigration law, etc. . . . and you can understand why Mr. Giuliani has a very difficult road ahead of him.
What a bunch of garbage! Some of us (LIKE ME) remember during Reagan's two terms in office how the perpetual 'true conservatives' whined incessantly. "Reagan didn't abolish one agency!" "Reagan was ballooning the budget!" "Reagan's cabinet was filled with one-worlders and establishment hacks!" "Reagan didn't overturn abortion via executive order!" And on and on...
Your salacious comments are also false. I jut heard Rudy state he is a strict constitutional constructionist.
If you lie to make your points, they don't persuade.
Yes. So once again, which RAT candidate do you think is better than Rudy?
Rudy also took guns away from long-term NYC permit holders.
I realize that, by making such a nonsensical statement, that you are oblivious to the importance of guns for self-defense, and that you prefer to have the government protect you instead of doing anything to protect yourself as well.
But do realize that some of prefer to deter crime, not report it.
This is a completely absurd statement for him to make, in light of the fact that he was mayor of a city where about 99% of law-abiding citizens would be unable to carry a concealed weapon under "local licensing laws."
His track record of idiotic lawsuits against gun dealers in other states -- i.e., outside his jurisdiction --exposes this crap as nothing more than silly flip-flopping on his part.
Let's look at the great success in California electing Rino Arnie who promptly moved hard left instead of voting for a true conservative like Tom McClintok.
If Rudy is the best Republicans can do, they deserve to lose.
Giuliani brings with him undeniable support for the war on terror, which we need to win.
He also brings an excellent attitude on taxes - he faced up NYC unions, who if anything are tougher than Democrats.
And his record on cleaning up NYC is unsurpassed.
He's the kind of tough, principled leader who would make a great President.
From a practical viewpoint, I doubt that he will do much on abortion or gun control. These are important issues to Freepers and to their enemies on the left, but I don't consider them national issues that normally mesh with Presidential decisionmaking.
I think most of the viable candidates support some kind of amnesty/immigration reform for illegals. I do too, so I might not be the best person to talk about this topic to Free Republic's anti-illegal wing. Still, find someone who opposes illegals who is also electable. I think you'll have a tough time of it.
If Hillary's the nominee, yes, she can out-shrill him, but she'll find herself made very unlikable in the process. The likable person wins the election and that would be Rudy.
Obama's more interesting but it looks like he may be self-destructing as we speak; his conversations about his religious beliefs have been strange at best. If nothing else, I think he and Rudy come to this issue on roughly equal terms.
Rudy Giuliani would almost certainly carry New York state, which would be a huge handicap for the Democrats.
I can't help but notice that the other front-running candidates seem to have very similar problems to Rudy. Rommey's questionable on abortion and religious issues as well. And of course McCain is a maverick who votes with Democrats half the time.
Among that list of realistic candidates, I'd consider Rudy to be the best one.
Thoughts?
D
Running against a hypothetical opponent is no way to win an election.
Giving folks a reason to vote for the GOP nominee, as opposed to simply voting against the other candidate, will get you much better results.
How come NO ONE on this freakin' site can spell Giuliani?
Especially when it's right there in the article?
Reagan is dead. There are no Reagan's on the horizon. If we wait for one to appear, sadly, Hitlery or Obamanac will be in the white house.
Bump
Which RAT candidate will be better than Rudy?
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.