Rudolph Giuliani?

American Thinker ^ | February 21, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

Rudolph Giuliani for president?  Please.  There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree. 

I know a little something about Giuliani.  Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City.  And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America's Mayor.  Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart. 

Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm.  Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor.  He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.  

I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage.  Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.   

He's more like the man who will be beaten - and by more than one candidate, mind you.

The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing.  All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn't pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 - he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour - and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention.  And on his list of credits I'll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life. 

This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events.  And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats.  They have an "R" next to their names.

As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the "Gay Pride" parade.  He actively supported "gay rights" and said he was "proud" of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage).  Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is "good and normal." 

Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion" should not be outlawed in NY.  And while he now says he is "personally opposed to abortion," he also once asserted, "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]."  I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.

Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action.  He has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits.  He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."  Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994.  Anyway, enough about that.  You get the idea.

My point is that Giuliani's golfer son has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination.  Allow me to lend this some perspective.

The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and  Barack Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president.   But now let's talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible. 

To the best of my knowledge:

- No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.

- Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination. 

- Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination. 

And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?

What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani.  What is this man thinking?  Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo?  Talk about believing your own press clippings.

The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man's lack of viability.  The obvious answer is that it's an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona.  It's also possible some in the Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009.  Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center.  They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America.  My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.

Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost.  Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing.  But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing.  You miss left far too much to be a contender.

[mkjessup]

I will vote for who ever the Repubs nominate

That is a dangerous mind set.

If the GOP nominated someone with the philosophy of David Duke, would you vote for him? I doubt that, you're smarter than that and so are most Republicans.

However, the criteria for who we vote for to be our President is quite honestly NOT the party label that a candidate may be sporting, our criteria should be WHICH candidate is going to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution of the United States.

In addition, We The People need to be examining the candidates to determine their moral fiber and their suitability to be President of the United States.

America elected President Horndog in 1992 AND in 1996, and the moral fallout from that exercise in foolishness is still being felt throughout the land.

Quite honestly we elected a President in 2000 that most Republicans believed to be a conservative but that word 'compassionate' preceding 'conservative' should have been the first alarm bell.

Rush Limbaugh has made the comparison between the current Bush Administration and the Nixon Administration, not in the areas of scandal, but in the areas of attempting to make nice-nice with, and placate, the natural enemies of America on the left end of the political spectrum. The truth is, this Administration has abdicated any claim to be 'conservative' when we have such atrocities signed into law like the 'No Child Left Behind Act' which is nothing but rehashed LBJ-Great-Society style thinking that the federal government can 'cure' what ails American students. That is a lie, the 'Department of Education' is essentially nothing but a bag o' money and a megaphone for the NEA, and everyone knows it. And do I have to remind anyone about McCain-Feingold and the unconstitutional assault on the First Amendment? Our President signed that disgraceful legislation into law, perhaps thinking the Supreme Court would overturn it, but that was naive optimism at best, crass and failed political calculation at the worst.

And don't let even one person accuse ME of bashing President Bush, I have stood by my President even when I had to hold my nose because he IS the President even when I don't agree with him, and my votes for him in 2000 and in 2004 GIVE me the right to criticize him when I think he's off track.

Rudy Guiliani was a great mayor of New York City, cleaned it up right nice, as a prosecutor, his work was pretty top notch. As a cheerleader at the '04 GOP convention, his speech was a barn burner. Does that make him presidential material?

No. Based on his experience alone, he is in the same category as Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

The fact is, there are two Republican Parties, one is the country-club, elite northeastern, Ivy League, big-government Rockefeller-style party, and then there is the party of Reagan/Goldwater ('64 vintage) which IS the party that won two of the largest landslides of the late 20th Century. And those landslides were won by a conservative Republican at the top of the ticket.

The worst thing that the GOP can do to conservative Republicans in this next election cycle (or ANY cycle) is to do what the Democrats have traditionally done to black Democrat voters in EVERY election cycle:

Take them for granted.

[FreePoster]

I'm not at all clear who these evil people are you are referring to.

[streetpreacher]

Rudolph Giuliani?

Is that a threat?

[Screamname]

"Rudolph, are you running for President?"

[Reagan Man]

I disagree with you.

There is nothing conservative about Rudy Giuliani and therefore nothing worth defending. He is a liberal. Since my earliest days on FR, FReepers have always attacked liberals. Rudy is no different in that regard. The incessant whining from the RudyBots has reached a fever pitch and indicates a level of sheer hysteria.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Being married three times will probably hurt him more than being liberal/moderate.

[mkjessup]

There is nothing conservative about Rudy Giuliani and therefore nothing worth defending. He is a liberal. Since my earliest days on FR, FReepers have always attacked liberals. Rudy is no different in that regard. The incessant whining from the RudyBots has reached a fever pitch and indicates a level of sheer hysteria.

You are correct.

The following table alone demonstrates that Rudy Guiliani is aligned more closely with the positions of the Democrat Party than he is with the Republican Party:

Giuliani/Clinton/Dem vs. GOP Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani

If anyone needed more evidence, even when the New York Republican Party put up a liberal Republican candidate for Governor (George Pataki), Rudy supported Mario Cuomo.

That speaks volumes right there.

Should Republicans support someone who chose the Democrat Mario Cuomo over the candidate of their own Party?

I say not only 'No', but *HELL NO*!!!

[neverdem]

Rudolph Giuliani?

"Is that a threat?"

It could be, but I'm not sure what threat you perceive. He is a statist.

[presently no screen name]

Your otherwise good post has this piercing lie .... No. Based on his experience alone, he is in the same category as Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

[Blackirish]

The fact is, there are two Republican Parties, one is the social right who is so absorbed with guns and abortion they do not know how to read a balance sheet and they cannot be trusted with the checkbook for a very long time.

The other is Rockefeller Republicans who are weak on social issues but are Yankee skinflints.

After blowing some 2-3 trillion dollars and getting absolutely nothing accomplished despite having all three branches of government...regarding ...tax reform....tort reform...entitlement reform....runaway spending...the social right has blown it....it is time for the Yankees to take the wheel.

[nopardons]

One can also have "flop sweat" while waiting in the wings, finally realizing that the play is a damned turkey.

People ( usually a BIG backer, who is allowed to sit in on the first reading ) can also get a terrible case of FLOP SWEAT.........long before the play actually opens! Sometimes the stink happens on the road. So yes, it IS possible to have a case of flop sweat VERY early on.

I grant you that it's a bit early on, for the use of the term; however, when someone/s are pinning their hopes on a nonexistent candidate or the hopes that someone will take off/catch fire, who deep down, they know won't, then NO, FLOP SWEAT is not all that much out of line.

Where were you the night I had to caution people about quoting the Scottish play, and what to do to remove the curse? LOL

[presently no screen name]

and I see no distinction between them and the extreme leftists.

Can't see it because it isn't there - anyone can claim anything here; but the lies and exaggerations out them.

[presently no screen name]

Bump!

[mkjessup]

Your otherwise good post has this piercing lie .... No. Based on his experience alone, he is in the same category as Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

That's no lie, that's the truth.

Rudy Guiliani's elective experience is confined to his years as Mayor of New York City. He has no military experience. He has very little national security experience. His homeland security connection (Bernie Kerik) is a bad punchline to an even worse joke. Rudy's experience as a prosecutor, while admirable, does not automatically confer presidential stature upon him.

My comparison to Obama and Clinton is valid, Mrs. Clinton is just now beginning the second term of her Senate career, before 2000, she had never held nor sought elective office. Barack Obama is just now beginning his first Senate term. When it comes to elective office, Rudy is right there between them.

Sorry the truth hurts, but the truth it is.

[nopardons]

Then WHY won't it hurt Newt, whose wives, marriages, and divorces are far more messy than Rudy's, but who has become, for some on FR, the savior in waiting of the GOP?

[mkjessup]

The other is Rockefeller Republicans who are weak on social issues but are Yankee skinflints.

You must not know much about Nelson Rockefeller (from which that phrase was originated), as Nelson set new records for spending when he was Governor of New York.

[presently no screen name]

Wrong - lies hurt! And THAT'S the truth.

My comparison to Obama and Clinton is valid

It's your opinion in your quest to trash Rudy - and that does not equate to truth.

Occupying a seat means diddly squat! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE? List their accomplishments!

[EternalVigilance]

[JennysCool]

Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart.

I'm on record saying this campaign is way too early, and a million things could happen between now and 2008. But if Rudy should happen to be the GOP nominee, the choice will be exactly the same: the Democrat -- be it Hillary!, Obama or Edwards -- will be Dinkins. We can differ on whether we like Rudy, but no one in their right mind wants Dinkins running the country.

[EternalVigilance]

"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani