Posted on 12/31/2004 4:22:22 AM PST by Ed Current
Human beings are imperfect.
And some are more imperfect than others.
So, elections are choices among imperfect alternatives.
A voter's task is to choose the best available viable candidate.
Rudy Giuliani WAS preferable to his predecessor as Mayor of New York City, David Dinkins, notable as New York City's first African-American mayor and a very good dresser.
Giuliani lost to Dinkins the first time, but, after Dinkins' dangerously inept handling of the Crown Heights riot, not even the Democrats could stop Giuliani from winning the rematch .
Guiliani WAS a great improvement.
He made New York City a safer and more enjoyable city
And the thought of Dinkins as Mayor on September 11, 2001 is frightening.
BUT, New York City is well to the left of America generally.
And the sad fact appears to be that Rudy Giuliani, a baptized Catholic, set aside his Church's basic teachings on abortion, homosexuality and marriage to be politically viable in New York City.
The recent embarrassing withdrawal of President Bush's nomination of former New York Police Commissioner and Giuliani business partner Bernard Kerik to be Homeland Security Secretary, "for personal reasons," highlights the need for the Republicans to nominate a better person than Giuliani in 2008.
Yes, Giuliani would be better than Hillary.
BUT, that's far from enough.
Of course, Kerik was Giuliani's personal recommendation to President Bush.
And that recommendation demonstrates that Giuliani lacks the judgment a President of the United States needs.
Kerik is like Giuliani, a man at his best during the War on Terror but a thrice married adulterer.
That may not be an impediment to electoral success in New York City, but it is hardly the path to the Republican Party's presidential nomination.
Giuliani's undeniable leadership in the War on Terror and cancer problem do not excuse his sins or substitute for repentance.
Giuliani's first marriage was to his cousin and childhood sweetheart, Regina Peruggi, to whom he was married from 1969 to 1982.
Giuliani had his first (childless) marriage annulled, supposedly because he discovered that they were second cousins instead of third cousins!
(How many people REALLY believe him about that?)
Giuliani had discovered Donna Hanover.
Giuliani married Hanover, an actress and television personality who became Donna Giuliani helped him get elected mayor and became the mother of his children, Andrew and Caroline.
Still not content, Giuliani became involved with an attractive press aide, prompting Donna Giuliani to resume the use of her maiden name.
Then Giuliani became involved with his latest wife, Judi Nathan, an increasingly public affair that prompted Ms. Hanover to appeal to the Cardinal to help preserve her marriage.
Unsuccessfully.
Ultimately, Giuliani moved out of the Mayor's residence, Gracie Mansion, and moved in with a gay male couple until his divorce from Ms. Hanover was final.
Then he promptly married Nathan, in Gracie Mansion, with his successor, Mayor Bloomberg, performing the civil ceremony.
Incidentally, Gracie Mansion was the one place that Ms. Hanover fought to keep Ms. Nathan from visiting while she and Giuliani were still married.
An appeals court ultimately upheld an order barring Ms. Nathan from Gracie Mansion in October 2001, when Hanover was still living there with Andrew and Caroline.
Friends of Giuliani said he picked the location solely for its privacy.
(How many gullible souls accept that explanation?)
In the eyes of his Church, Giuliani is not married to Judi Nathan and, unless he can secure an annulment, on only God knows what grounds, he's still married to Ms. Hanover, who remarried.
Giuliani IS more fit than SOME to be President, but his priorities are misordered and surely the Grand Old Party can do much better!
---
Email: GaynorMike@aol.com
Where's YOUR tolerance for those of us that are disgusted by(not afraid of) homosexual behavior and the gay agenda? How can you judge us like that? Are you denying us our right to religious beliefs? You're not a bigot are you?
Not gonna happen.
The Kerik Chronicles aren't over yet.
I don't see how Rudy could carry many small rural red states any other way than as a protest vote against whomever the Democrats run in 2008. Rudy has next to nothing in common with voters like me; I see him as nothing more than an urban politician.
I cannot even jump onto the 'America's Mayor' bandwagon. I have lived in a rural area for my entire life hence it follows a mayor title has no more sway than that of dogcatcher.
Thank you for some thoughtful analysis. My question is this: If you rebuke those moderates too strongly, where will they go?
I must disagree with you on whether or not the "moderates" in our party got the current majority elected. I believe that if the moderates voted for Kerry (barf), W might NOT have been elected.
Personally, as a Republican who believes that the future of our country (literally and figuratively) lies in continuing Republican administrations, I would not push one single voter to the Dems. Not one.
Again, we have bigger fish to fry. Thanks.
Only from where you're at "Staten Island".
uh.. OK, RINO. But DELUSIONAL seems to work too
But you ARE a liberal, so I assume you have a point there?
Hmmm... well... this being a family website, I can't really say. But you could always go back to the Dems, from whence you came.
"confused" comes to mind.
No, see "RINO" above.
That's utter nonsense
Sorry, wrong answer. It's the RATS who have the "Big Tent". Republicans have core principals and values. And what would doom the Republican party is a "BIG TENT" philosophy, just like Rome fell from within by granting all conquered people citizenship and oh yeah, like the RAT's are now falling apart from within due to it's 'Big Tent' and fractured special interest groups.
I don't like fish. And what's this "world" business?
You really ARE a RINO aren't you. And again, I assume there's a point there -- somewhere?!?
For one, show me a candidate who DOESN'T want to grab my guns, unlike Rudy. Or one that doesn't support the KILLING of babies that are half born.
Check you voice mail. Barney Frank left a message.
As such, Rudy will get the nomination when monkeys fly out of my butt.
"Where's YOUR tolerance for those of us that are disgusted by(not afraid of) homosexual behavior and the gay agenda? How can you judge us like that? Are you denying us our right to religious beliefs? You're not a bigot are you?"
I never said I was NOT tolerant. I want to include anybody and everybody in our tent. Can you make that statement? If so, please do. If not, to whom then can we attach the label bigot?
Is EVERYBODY welcome in your Republican Party? They are in mine.
So basically what you've just said is that you don't have to have any views that mesh with the GOP, as long as you can win an election. Wow.
That's EXACTLY what you said. You stated that the judging of a candidate based on their views of homosexuality constitutes intolerance.
In doing so, you have revealed your intolerance of anyone that thinks homosexuality is wrong. That's what makes you a bigot.
After one party or the other has been in power, there is always kind of a backlash. IMO it is going to be hard for the reps to win if the dims put up a good candidate.
This statement reveals everything I need to know about you. Fortunately, most true conservatives don't hold this same belief, and we won't compromise their principles to win an election at any cost.
Is EVERYBODY welcome in your Republican Party? They are in mine.
Toss the platform in exchange for Osama, Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Dean….Fidel…there is no end..KOFI.
"You stated that the judging of a candidate based on their views of homosexuality constitutes intolerance. "
OK, so you've managed to twist my words to make ME out to be an intolerant bigot. I'm not sure I can play in these semantical Major Leagues, but I'll give it another shot.
I think if you don't like a particular agenda, that's OK with me. If you don't want to vote for a candidate because he has, for example, curly hair - that's your right. But if you want to exclude him from your party because some of his beliefs differ from yours, or his hairstyle, I think that constitutes intolerance.
You wanna give "intolerance" a different definition, be my guest. Or, it occurs to me that you may want to re-define "Republican" to fit your set of beliefs.
I cannot even jump onto the 'America's Mayor' bandwagon. I have lived in a rural area for my entire life hence it follows a mayor title has no more sway than that of dogcatcher.
In conclusion a Rudy candidacy would give the Dems their biggest landslide since LBJ slaughtered Goldwater. So I see Rudy getting the nomination when monkeys fly out of my butt.
"Take myself, I believe that abortion is insidious and a republican candidate may not. I may disagree with "republican" politicians who make this an issue only because if they make that a plank in their platform it is likely that I will be at odds with them on other issues. The days of being a single or double issue voter are over. I have decided that a few issue difference is not a necessary evil. "
Three points upon which we completely agree. To get back to the main point of the thread, I don't believe Giuliani is so far to the left that he doesn't qualify as a good Republican and a good candidate.
We should not make the mistakes of the Dems, who have put in place a litmus test on abortion. That issue alone is pushing their party further and further left - which, God willing, they will continue to do and so remain unelectable.
What I want to avoid is doing the same thing in the other direction. Imposing litmus tests that push the party TOO far to the right will have the same negative effect.
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.