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
The indoctrination of our country's youth by gay activists isn't comparable in significance to a candidate's hairstyle, though individuals like yourself would love for us to believe as much.
You didn't need my help in exposing yourself as a bigot. You did a fine job on your own.
You might find a warmer reception on DU. Tell them we said "hi."
"...individuals like yourself.."
Talk about scary...
And if "individuals like yourself" think my definition of Republicanism qualifies me for the DU, you are WAY too far right for my tastes. There can't be too many of you.
Please God, don't let there be too many of him.
Your "definition" is identical to that given by most liberals attempting to paint conservatives as bigots. It's familiar because we all hear it so often in the MSM. Your ideas posted on this thread are the same unoriginal tripe we've tuned out for years.
Good riddance, good luck with Hillary.
Being a Broken Glass Republican, I would support Rudy or McClintock for President.
But, there are others who would gladly support McClintock (Or someone like him) but bash Rudy to death, and take their ball and go home on election day.
Against Hillary, Rudy would win in a landslide. McClintock would lose in a landslide.
What is so hard to understand??
I don't hold apprehensions about Rudy Giuliani - he has great people appeal, but I prefer steady Steve Forbes.
LOL!!
The morons on DUhhh claim the Republican Party is now full of "Extreme Right Wing Fascists".
Like most things, I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle...
"Good riddance"
Oh, I'm not going anywhere; I'm not afraid of you and yours, so don't kid yourself. And I'm not voting for Hillary, either, of course, so I guess I don't conform to your narrow definition of Republican.
Deal with me, and the many like me. Or don't, as you seem to prefer. Try to push us out of the party, while at the same time boasting of your "tolerance". Should be entertaining to watch.
Kerik, regardless of his past, was the best choice by far for that position. America is weaker without him in that post.
I'm basically with you. Personally, I consider those who bash us the real "RINOs".
I don't hold apprehensions about Rudy Giuliani - he has great people appeal, but I prefer steady Steve Forbes.
I like Steve Forbes too, but reality tells us he's just too much of a Poindexter.
They know full well that the country as a whole is shifting toward the right, and both groups want to protect their funding. Liberals and RINOs are terrified that the people will choose freedom over Big Government spending and Big Government people control.
The reason we have primary elections is to choose our candidates.
Still grieving over the election?
"I like Steve Forbes too, but reality tells us he's just too much of a Poindexter."
If you mean to draw a comparison of Steve Forbes to John Poindexter, I don't get the connection. Please explain that "reality" to which you refer.
"I like Steve Forbes too, but reality tells us he's just too much of a Poindexter."
If you mean to draw a comparison of Steve Forbes to John Poindexter, I don't get the connection. Please explain that "reality" to which you refer.
"Poindexter" = Dork, Nerd, Geek.
Nothing to do with John.
Poindexters don't get elected President. (See Algore).
Well then, how did a "world leader" like Kofi Annan - a silk-suited, smooth and eloquent, elegant effete (elite nerd)- become head of the pending one world government entity known as the United Nations?
Steve Forbes is more akin to the John Wayne action idol compared to effete Annan. Certainly Steve Forbes is rational compared to Al Gore who is not rational.
ACTION is not effusively flapping the jaws. JUDGEMENT should not be moral evasiveness based on self-serving dissembling of the truth and reality as exampled by Annan, and other politikos. Steve Forbes seems sensible, straight forward and practical. I dig that. I don't see how you can compare Weird Al Gore to well-grounded Steve Forbes.
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.