Posted on 07/30/2005 5:55:36 AM PDT by Uncledave
With Gipper's game plan, Rudy can win it all
July 30, 2005
BY THOMAS ROESER Advertisement
As I write this I know my fellow social conservatives will get mad: There is no one in either political party who would be a more exciting candidate for president than Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. I'll tell you his story -- the good and the bad -- and I'll tell you how he can solve his problems with you. And me. Incidentally, as you read, keep in mind the contrast with Mayor Daley.
The good and bad about Rudy is contained in a book, The Prince of the City [Encounter: 2005] by Fred Siegel, a hard-bitten teacher at Cooper Union University. The good: Rudy came into office in 1994 a Republican in a Big Apple that was rotten to the core, steeped with bosses, bagmen and racial arsonists, a hostile "combination of liberal consensus and helplessness [that] made serious policy debate seem irrelevant," and quickly brought in a band of brother prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office. They gave up millions in private law firm salaries for the fun of working and drinking (after hours) with Rudy. Most never left his side until his two terms ran out in 2001.
Giuliani was an eerily compulsive hands-on manager. If you want to understand him, said an associate, remember that as a Yankee fan he's the guy who keeps score and writes down how each out and each run took place. Just as when he read The Godfather he diagrammed how the mob worked, for relaxation he would sketch on a pad how every department worked. He would explain to the public clearly what he wanted to do: cut the size of government, cut taxes to attract jobs "so people can work," consolidate or cut out city departments, introduce competition to delivery of services and work with the governor [Democrat Mario Cuomo] "to get our fair share of revenue."
He insisted on tough police standards, once jumping out of his limo in Times Square to chase a guy he saw grab a woman's purse. He was heedless of civil libertarians. It seemed like he wanted to offend all interest groups and took the heat, forgetting the polls. Crime in 1995 saw 163,428 fewer felonies, with murder dropping 16 percent in 1996. He trumpeted that work is the best social welfare policy, pushing welfare reform, announcing that 23 percent of the welfare recipients in Jersey City were also receiving New York City benefits. He balanced his budget, fought with Al Sharpton against what he called "racial racketeering," and grinned as he took heat from minority communities.
The bad? Giuliani was ego-driven. He got jealous of his police commissioner, who was getting more favorable press than he, fired him and hired another (who was just as tough). Giuliani's personal life fell into tatters: his first marriage annulled, his second wife was a TV anchor who drove him nuts. He spatted with her, kept public company with a divorcee, came down with prostate cancer, married again. His political career was pronounced over. Then came 9/11.
That tragedy redeemed him. When the first plane hit the north tower, Guiliani ran from the Pinnacle Hotel where he was at a breakfast, shouting over his cell phone that command headquarters should move from 7 World Trade Center to Barclay Street a block away. Good thinking: Just as they evacuated, the plane hit the south tower. The debris was so heavy his command center was inundated. With his cell phone deadened, Giuliani's staff thought he was dead as well, but a janitor found him dazed and led him out through a little-known passage in the basement.
Television captured the man at that moment, stumbling down the street in the smoke, his handkerchief to his mouth, directing his city through uncharted territory, ordering all bridges and tunnels shut down. Courage is the most important virtue, said Churchill: It guarantees all others. As Bush retires, he should be supplanted by a man of this valor.
Social conservatives will oppose Giuliani for his pro-abortion views. It's up to Giuliani to help himself with them, and here's how. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the most permissive abortion law in the country. Rudy, can you hear me? If you want this thing -- this presidency -- you gotta change and mean it. Your marriages we can do nothing about. But your social views have to change. They'll say you're an opportunist, but you have heard that before. You can change. And mean it. We're waiting.
Ok you have posted what I said again? Why? What is your point. I mean I agree with what I said. If i was going to get zotted for saying that the religious right demanding religious litmus tests was like the taliban I would already be zotted. This is a political forum not a christian one. I am as important to the Republican future as any group that demends religious litmus tests in fact I don't alienate a large portion of voters.
Hmm, that's rather curious, why did you specifically single Blue Laws out?
"Oh there wont be burkas but there will be Blue Laws, forced religious instruction, a limitation of the first amendment, Religion as state law. Those all happened here in the past and those are the things we are fighting against in the Islamic nations."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453719/posts?page=122#122
I have no problem with that.
Forced religious instruction was a historic activity used with Native Americans. I mention it only because I was questioned why Republicans should not be subject to a religious litmus test. We don;t need to return to that era regardless of the wishes of the minority in the party.
Well that is very nice. But you are avoiding answering the question.
Hear, hear!
Of course he is avoiding the question.
"Ok you have posted what I said again? "
I am posting what you said again because you're a troll.
Because your reading comprehension is nil, let's review what you said in that post, and review my response:
"Since the Evolution folks are allowed to stay on free republic I doubt I am going to be banned for saying that religious litmus tests are akin to an American Taliban."
Now, my response which quoted your original posts is the proof that you're a troll. You are not talking about litmus tests, you are talking about more than that:
"Oh there wont be burkas but there will be Blue Laws, forced religious instruction, a limitation of the first amendment, Religion as state law."
Anyone who believes that American Christian conservatives and the Taliban are substantially the same needs to live among the Taliban for a week. That's like saying orange juice and hydroflouric acid are sunstantially the same thing. I say: guzzle a quart of each and get back with me with your findings.
I'm not avoiding anything-- I ask what the point of your question is specifically when you single out one item on his list? It seems rather curious.
Yes religious litmus tests are merely the step toward religious control of the Republican party which I am totally against and which would ultimately lead to the end of the party as a functioning unit. How is that trolling? I am quite willing to specifically answer to my beliefs and why the party needs a less active religious right. My posts are certainly less of a troll than someone who continues to post the same thing over and over and link to a post that is full of personal insults that they are so proud of.
Does this statement by Giuliani on gun control fit the definition of "gun grabber?"
YES. What part of "shall not be infringed" does he (and you?) not understand?
Besides, a "motorist" does not have a Constitutional RIGHT to own and use a vehicle. A law-abiding citizen who wants to buy, own, and use a firearm DOES.
Also, just as in England and other such "Nanny" states, licensing was the precurser to registration, and registration the precurser to confiscation.
If we allow a northeastern liberal RINO with such gun-grabbing, government knows best, tendencies to gain power outside of his region, which is lost to the socialists already, then we are making a grave mistake for the survival of our Constitutional, Representative Republic.
If he, or his ilk rise to the highest offices in our country, where will it end? In England, not only have they banned guns (the idiots don't even allow most of their own police officers to carry firearms), but they have also banned/severly restricted TOY guns, replicas, BB guns, and pepper spray. They are even considering removing sharp tips from all knives! And worst of all, they have denied citizens the GOD-given right to defend themselves against criminal predators.
We do NOT want these un-American infringements on our rights here in America, so we need to keep the liberals, including the Rudy's and McCain's of the Republican party, OFF of the Supreme court, OUT of the executive branch, and preferably, OUT of national office of any size, shape, or form.
And where did I say they are exactly the same? Akin but not the same. The religious right has made advances into the present century that would honestly disgust Christians in the past. Thats a good thing and some of us don't want to fall back that far.
You must have never graduated high school.....your reading comprehension is so poor. Yet it is evident that you have no intellectual capacity when you compare chrisitans to the taliban. Once again, you are not talking about litmus tests:
"Oh there wont be burkas but there will be Blue Laws, forced religious instruction, a limitation of the first amendment, Religion as state law."
I agree...I think Rudy will modify those views that social conservatives find unacceptable anbd he will be the nominee...with George Allen as VP...he can beat Hillary...I don't think any other Republican can...don't underestimate Hillary...she can win by moving to the right--as she is now doing...only a political star like Rudy can beat her.
Worthless RINO and the most OVERRATED politician in the US.
The problem is that this statement applies to any atheistic "philosophy" as well, including Objectivism. Camus (who I suspect had a sliver of faith) summed it up nicely at the end of The Stranger: "What difference could they make to me, the deaths of others, or a mother's love, or his God; or the way a man decides to live, the fate he thinks he chooses, since one and the same fate was bound to 'choose' not only me but thousands of millions of privileged people who, like him, called themselves my brothers... Every man alive was privileged; there was only one class of men, the privileged class. All alike would be condemned to die one day; his turn too, would come like others'."
The point is that if there is no God, live your life in whatever way you like and it makes no difference. If religion is a lie, Christ and Stalin are equally dead, the latter after having killed 50 million or so, all the while yucking it up with Khrushchev and the boys at drunken dinners lasting till 4 a.m.
Now without reference to religion, Sentis, you tell me why Stalin was "wrong."
Wow do you have another attack or do we have to listen to you say the same thing on this board for the rest of our lives? I mean get some more creative attacks.
Sentis, I'm a right-wing, conservative extremist to use the words of the MSM. I'm not religious. In fact, I'm a non- practicing Cathoilic who was raised in N.Y. I would like to understand your claim that the Republicans can't win unless the Religious Right shuts up and stops using a LItmus test.
My theory is that the Republicans can't win without them. Until the Moral Majority got involved, the Dems considered the Congress their domain, and they were right. Without religious conservatives, we wouldn't hold the house or senate. The White House tends to flip often.
Bringing in apethetic independents by being dem lite will not, imo, win the Republicans seats consistently. Those people don't care enough to even know which party they belong in.
Ignoring the religious conservatives, who are the backbone of the party, will hasten the demise of the Republican party. Maybe where you are, being a Rockefeller Republlican is o.k., but in the south and Midwest it isn't enough. Principals are not something people toss aside just to win a campaign. What you get then is an incumbent who doesn't share your core values. Might as well vote dem, if that's what you want.
Winning for the sake of winning, will not bring the change religious conservatives want. For the RINO to throw them a couple of bones will not hurt the RINO. Shunning Christian Conservatives from the table absolutely will. Oh, and Primaries are the time to find the most acceptable candidate to the voter. In the general, it's time to vote for the lesser of two evils. So, yes now is the time for Christion conservatives to voice their opinions. This voicing also let's the candidates know what positions they must be willing to take if they want those votes.
If I had the answer there would be no need to search for the new frame for the debate. There has been little or no philosophical work in this direction as conservatives and moral thinkers genereally have had their heads stuck in religious Holy Books and not in thinking about other reasons why hedonism is in itself morally incompatible with culture. Rand and the objectivists are probably among a select few that have went off in the direction needed to create a natural moral philosophy.
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.