Posted on 09/27/2005 6:37:12 AM PDT by areafiftyone
This is the story of how Hurricane Katrina made this conservative Republican fall in love with Rudy Giuliani all over again. I first developed a fond affection for the mayor when he did what many believed could not be done and cleaned up New York City. In 1999, I cheered him when he stood up for common decency and the taxpayers of New York by rejecting city funding for elephant dung art. My admiration turned to love when Mayor Giuliani reassured the nation, and the world, with his incredible response to the attacks of September 11.
An admirer of Giuliani and a believer that he had a good shot at the presidency long before Hurricane Katrina, I now find myself becoming a full-fledged fan of the prospect. I will likely get some grief from some of my fellow pro-life, social conservatives, but I hope they will consider not only what an attractive candidate Rudy would be in the post-Katrina political climate, but also to consider the attributes Giuliani would bring to the presidency.
On September 11, we saw what a leader looks like during a crisis and it looked like Rudolph Giuliani. In contrast, the recent example of New Orleans’ Mayor Nagin taking to the airwaves cursing the federal government and calling for the cavalry, not only did not look like leadership, but made Giuliani's performance on 9/11 look positively, well, presidential by comparison.
Many of the lessons learned from Katrina highlight Giuliani’s strengths. Considering that he received some of his harshest criticism as mayor for his tough law and order positions, it is impossible to imagine Giuliani giving looters a pass (and, I would argue, encouragement) as Mayor Nagin did in the early days of flooding in New Orleans.
Thanks to the blame-Bush media, it seems the public now believes that the first and ultimate responder to any kind of disaster, whether natural or man-made, should be the federal government, or more specifically, the President. Giuliani is the only potential 2008 candidate that has shown himself capable of handling a challenge of such historic proportions. Because issues of national security and war and peace in the Middle East will outlive the Bush presidency, the nation will be looking for a leader able to perform in a crisis.
Even more than his proven ability to perform under pressure, however, one thing that Giuliani may be able to do, that some other Republicans might not, is unite the country. If Bush, as amiable as he is, and with a reputation as a uniter as governor of Texas, could be painted as an extremist divider, it is reasonable to believe the same will be attempted with the next Republican candidate. Giuliani achieved giant stature in my eyes, and those of most other Americans, with his actions following 9/11. Because he is already known as a uniter and a strong leader, he will be resistant to attempts to portray him otherwise. He can also claim to have received a large number of votes from Democrats in past elections. Not many, if any, of the other potential Republican presidential candidates can say that.
Ironically, Giuliani's positions on abortion and gay rights, while making it more difficult for him to win the Republican primary, make it almost impossible for opponents to paint him as an extremist. Abortion will always be an important issue to Republican primary voters, but with Bush appointments of two (or possibly three) conservative Supreme Court justices, the issue is not as likely to be the deal breaker that it has been in some past elections. Choosing a pro-life running mate might be enough to win over enough pro-life Republican primary voters to capture the nomination. He would definitely have to answer some tough questions about social policy (and he better not have any Bernie Kerik problems), but if he plays things smart, he can win the Republican nomination.
Electability though, while obviously necessary, does not a good president make. Giuliani's effectiveness as mayor of New York and his excellent communication skills convince me that he could be a very successful president. From his words and actions following 9/11, and more recently from his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, I know he can inspire. Because of Giuliani's staunch, and often eloquent, defense of President Bush’s policy in Iraq, and because of his personal experience on 9/11, I have no doubt that he would continue to vigorously prosecute the War on Terror and would be a strong defender of Israel and a promoter of democracy in the Middle East.
It is still early. I’m not saying Rudy Giuliani will be my choice in the spring of 2008. I’m just saying that in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with the mission in Iraq and the Middle East still far from over, “the world’s mayor” is looking pretty good right now.
Lorie Byrd lives in North Carolina where she worked as a litigation paralegal before becoming a stay-at-home to her two daughters six years ago. She has written on political matters at the group blog, Polipundit, since April 2004. She also writes at her own weblog, Byrd Droppings, and is currently a contributor at ConfirmThem.com and MediaSlander.com
I know I won't vote for McCain. But I think he has to much baggage to pull a pres run off now.
He'll never get out of the primaries....and shouldn't.
No, none of these usual guys look good. Time for a change. Time for real conservatives, and fresh blood. Enough of the career politicians.
UGH!
He is also pro-illegal invader.
I'm sick and tired of Republicans and conservatives eulogizing a man who represents those very "values" they ostensibly reject.
I will NEVER vote for Giuliani for President - PERIOD.
Yes he was a Democrat and Ronald Reagan dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets. BUT nevertheless I still voted for him TWICE and never ever regretted my vote! Actually he was the first president I ever voted for.
This statement is not entirely true. Freedom is simply liberty within moral limits, as opposed to licentiousness (freedom without limits). But freedom exists because of the principle of "self governance" not because we cede discretion to a "lawful authority". That term suggest that the government (lawful authority?) is god. However, "self governance" (a bedrock founding principle of America) is based upon the idea that each person's fear and reverence for God will be a restraining force in one's thoughts and actions. It is God's place to govern the morals of men, not the government's. Rudy's secularism really came to the fore in that statement.
the republican party stands for NOTHING if it allows the Clintons to walk back into the white house because it disqualifies candidates based on the litmus test issues. I don't see Bush kicking down doors on the abortion and gay marriage issues. a president has few powers to affect those issues anyway.
I think Roe will be overturned someday, and that will take abortion out of the political discussion at the federal level. hopefully, the defense of marriage act will be upheld, and gay marriage/civil unions will also remain a states issue. that's about the best we can hope for on those two issues - you are never going to have federal laws banning abortion for adult women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, or outlawing states from enacting their own laws on gay civil unions.
If you want to see President Hillary! inagurated in 2009, vote for Guiliani in the 2008 primary.
Stalin. Better hair and a better mustache.
those gun laws were in place in NYC long before Rudy got there. you talk as if his term as mayor involved some massive "gun roundup" agenda from legal gun owners.
No, they were rounded up before he got there. He spent much of his term trying to spread those onerous gun control laws to the rest of the nation.
nothing like that happened, he simply enforced the gun laws that were on the books to lower the crime rate.
Please show me a single statistic that backs your contention that gun control lowers crime rates. As you yourself said, those gun control laws were on the books in NYC long before he took office, when the crime rate was insane. He did a great job lowering the crime rate, but that reduction had absolutely nothing to do with new gun control laws, and it's absurd for you to try to make that connection.
You can make all the excuses for Rudy you want, but I’ll let Rudy speak for himself on the issue:
Citizens Crime Comission: Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building… even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts…
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements… I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
Rudy always looks good in a crisis situation because he is a true leader who is always in control.
He is a very appealing candidate for 2008.
One should consider all the issues, not be a single issue voter.
Rudy has never been a social activist. He is first and foremost a law and order guy who respects and enforces the Constitution and the law.
He has none of the "personality" baggage of McPain, and if you remember his speech at the 2004 RNC he is brilliant, charming, and speaks without notes.
There is nobody stronger on terror than Rudy. He is the one who threw Arafat out of Lincoln Center when The Arkansas Grifters met with him in the WH 20 times, and Slickette planted one on Arafat's WINO.
Very strong on cultural issues as well.....withdrew funding for the Brooklyn Museum because of the "art" displayed there was offensive to religion. ( the doo-doo on the Madonna scandal)
I don't think The Arkansas Grifters will get the Dem nomination, but if they do, Rudy, or anyone else with an "R" after their name will have my vote.He might get my vote in any case.
Listen, I like Mr. Giuliani, too. I think he's swell. I especially enjoyed him on SNL.
I think he's quite fit for certain public offices, especially as mayor of New York City, or Governor of New York, or as a US Senator from New York.
But I ain't gonna vote for the guy for president.
No way, no how.
Wrong; if you can make it in politics in New York City(or Boston).. you have ten foot pole marks all over you.. and are suffering from the dread disease Socialism..
No one who separates the law from its divine source is a law an order guy. And no one who believes that killing babies is okay enforces the true Constitution. In fact, such a person is a subversive, since the laws of the United States and State govermments were all founded on the premise that laws have a divine source, i.e. the 10 Commandments.
the party will have to decide whether it wants to nominate someone who might be litmus test pure, but is otherwise unknown to most americans.
in 2000, we had a well funded candidate, with a well known name, governor from a large state, with whom the american people had a good degree of comfort because his father had held the presidency - and we lost the popular vote. yet I see people post all the time that if we go further to the right, with a candiadte who is even less well known, that we are going to win in a landslide. that political logic defies any reason.
the other thing Rudy has going for him - he is perhaps the last candidate out there with whom the american people have any connection with regarding 9-11 and the war on terror. to the degree that national security remains an issue for republicans to run on, he is one of few possible candidates with whom americans have any positive connection with on that subject. nominate George Allen or Pence or Bill Owens - we lose that "persona" connection on that issue.
"is as big a gun grabber as Guiliani.
I expect the mayor of NYC to hand out guns to all comers. /S"
BTW NYC has had a conceal/carry permit law for 50+ years.
You can carry a hand gun with a permit.
Of course, this doesn't apply to the bad guys.
And that's okay. I am not saying everyone should vote for him. But we need to have an idea who wants to run and who is not running. That is why I post this stuff. If anyone else was talked about in the press for 2008 in the Republican side I would post that too. The press is following Rudy, McCain and Hillary very closely because they are the odds on favorites right now. But right now most people who are polled are going by name recognition. The Republicans like Allen, etc. are polling in the single digits if at all. By the time 2007 comes along we will have our candidates. If Rudy does well and wins the nomination he will be it whether we like it or not and you and everyone else who doesn't think he should be president can vote for third party or Dem. If he doesn't then buh bye. Simple as that.
Of course the party will decide. But party primaries are always more extreme than the general election. It's not avoidable.
He won't and shouldn't be the nominee.
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.