GIULIANI '08: A REAL CHANCE

The New York Post ^ | 5/23/06 | John Podohertz

[Blackirish]

May 23, 2006 -- IN my new book ("Can She Be Stopped?"), I suggest that the Republican best suited to the challenge of preventing Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Oval Of fice in 2008 is Rudy Giuliani. A Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday offers some strong ballast for the idea: In a head-to-head matchup, Rudy beats Hillary 49 percent to 40 percent, the best showing among all Republican contenders.

By contrast, John McCain has a 46-to-42 advantage over Hillary - besting her but not as decisively as Rudy does. Rudy is viewed favorably by 64 percent of those asked, McCain by 49 percent (Hillary: 50 percent).

And this is not a poll of Republicans alone: The respondents are 41 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican and 21 percent independent.

It's probably not surprising that Rudy wins in a head-to-head contest for the presidency. After all, Hillary is a lightning rod - while he, once a hugely controversial figure, has become beloved.

But what about in a Republican primary? Can Rudy possibly win?

In surveys of Republican primary voters, two names top every list - Giuliani and McCain. Each gets support from around 30 percent, with every other possible contender hovering around 2 or 3 percent at most.

[One-Four-Five]

Post #22. You don't say.

That poster has been registered on this site for well over five years. Based on various posts by various posters in this and other threads, a pattern develops where harsh criticisms of Giuliani are often accompanied by comments that appear similarly irrational.

I have little difficulty understanding reasonable criticisms by posters who identify strongly with an agenda that would be labeled by many as 'socially conservative.' I have great difficulty understanding anyone thinking that their criticisms of Giuliani are going to look rational when they're part of a tirade that throws around such claims.

[durasell]

p.s.

The "greaseball" comments regarding Rudy are just dumb bigotry unless uttered by an Italian.

[monkeyshine]

Indeed. I'd like to see Condi run, not because I want to vote for her (I might!) but because I want to see where she stands on other issues besides foreign affairs. It's way too early to pick a winner let alone the candidates.

I think if it does come down to a Hillary vs Condi race it could destroy the Democratic party - they can't win at all if they lose even 20% of the black vote, and if the GOP comes out for her in droves it would end the DNC's constant demonization of the GOP as "racists" forever. The party that freed the slaves would be the first party to nominate an African American, Woman, for the Presidency. Not that I'm saying anything new here...

[One-Four-Five]

What are they when uttered by an Italian?

I still don't see the problem with the prosecutor issue. The guy everyone was so worried about being an attack dog 12 years ago made it through two terms during which race relations improved immensely. I don't believe too many people thought that possible. The attack dog changed the minds of many liberals on many issues. I don't think many predicted that would happen, either.

What NYC problems did Hillary solve? Is that what you meant? I can't think of one, except for perhaps causing even more liberals to decide they were looking at things all wrong...

[durasell]

When uttered by an Italian (actually must be an Italian-American and not a recent immigrant) the terms "greaseball" or "goomba" refer to prior generations -- the old Christ in Concrete guys or oldtime gangsters. Typically they are used to differentiate the difference between generations.


I don't see Rudy as significantly improving race relations. They may have improved during his administration but whether they were a direct result of his administration is an issue of debate. He did put more cops on foot patrol and had some out reach programs, so that may count for something. Who knows, right?

Hillary's main function, as far as I can see, is as a provocative fixture for both dems and republicans. She's a poke in the eye to conservatives in a city that has made Bush hating into a religion and a convenient boogey-man for conservatives.

She did accomplish a few things, such as improved medical screening for 9/11 and pushing Washington to release some of the promised funds for 9/11. Personally, I don't see her going anyplace any time soon. Maybe secretary of state in some distant dem future, who knows?

[One-Four-Five]

Well, that's all fine & well, but if that's the context in which that term was used, in the post in this thread I saw it, then I'm the Easter Bunny.

Hint: I don't have fur, or a tail, big floppy ears, or a basket full of eggs.

I do have bewilderment over some of the bashfests this politician inspires.

As for the other one--and I must say I'm getting a little sick & tired of seeing her name morphed into a direct comparison with a dictator who engineered the genocide of millions, much as I don't like the Senator--Jacob Javits could've done those things, and I think we both know where he's been for the past few decades. I won't look for reasons I consider unfair merely to put her down, but anything she did that had anything to do with 9/11 was beyond a no-brainer so far as I can see. I'm not the type of partisan who'd be unwilling to give her credit for something if I think she deserved it, but I don't see it. I see a woman with a lot of ambition using her position as a neatly choreographed stepping stone.

Most of what I see written about Giuliani, both pro and con, is extremely limited in scope, and ignores what I've always felt had more to do with his skills as a politician. That said, it's hard to overstate his presence in the dozens of press conferences that were conducted in the days following 9/11. But it didn't really surprise me, because I saw it in the press appearances he made following the TWA crash 10 years ago.

I thought what went on regarding his wife was disgusting, and I think there's plenty on his resume that deserves some measure of criticism. But while the results are what matter the most to me, the proven ability to lead under tremendous pressure is all the more reason to look past the obvious foibles. In spite of how many times someone who thinks they have a better idea call him a RINO or gun-grabber or what have you.

[katiebelle]

In an ideal world I would agree. Unfortunately we usually have to settle for the most compatible candidate to our beliefs or the lesser of evils if you will. There is who you want an then there is who is electable. I would rather take a liberal conservative any day over Hillary or Gore or Kerry.

[durasell]

I pretty much agree with you. I happen to feel that Rudy wouldn't make an effective President. But lots of people wouldn't make an effective President, including me.

That said, the guy did lose friends on 9/11. And he did attend all those funerals, which was almost certainly a real and human gesture and not a political ploy.

Truthfully, I find the hatred exhibited for Rudy a little disturbing. However, if I dwell on it for any length of time I come to the unpleasant conclusion that it's just another symptom of the growing divide in this country. So, obviously, I don't care to dwell on it for any length of time.

[durasell]

p.s.

Unlike some on this board and some here in NYC I do not relish that division. I find it deeply disturbing and a destructive force.

[Cincinna]

For every vote Rudy loses because he is not conservative enough ( according to some on this site who would happily hand ther country over to Hillary and her HINO). For every vote Rudy loses, he will gain 2 or 3.

Every poll shows Rudy beating Hillary and taking NY State.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[little jeremiah]

I just can't imagine very many Republicans and/or conservatives voting for him.

[Coldwater Creek]

I think that it probably will be Allen or someone very much like him. He doesn't meet all of my "wants", but comes very close.

BTW, it will be the Redskins. Joe Gibbs time is running out and he will make it happen.

[Alberta's Child]

Podhoretz belongs to a group of so-called "conservatives" who have spent far too much time living in urban nanny-states in the Northeast. William Kristol is another perfect case in point.

The problem with people like this is that their notion of a "conservative" political philosophy is considered damn near radical Marxism in most of "flyover country." People who go to high-priced prep schools in New York, who are perfectly comfortable living in a police state like New York City (where the 40,000 police officers are among the only people in a city of 8 million who are legally permitted to carry guns), and who think of a cocktail party on the Upper East Side of Manhattan as a "political rally" really don't have a good sense of what conservatives across this country are all about.

Just look at so many of the posts here on this thread. It's amazing how many unapologetic "gun-grabbers" are willing to make their views known here on FreeRepublic simply to show their support for a guy whose conservative credentials are very lacking -- especially when you consider that gun control is such an unpopular issue across most of this country that it was abandoned by the Democrats after it likely cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Starting to look like it's Rudy's to lose."

To John Franken-Loving-Moonie-Whore Podhoretz. Which means exactly jack $#!#.

I will never, ever, vote for Rudy. I will vote third party if he is the GOP nominee. And I will tell everyone exactly why: the man cheated on his wife--knowing his young kid would certainly find out--while in Gracie Mansion. This man wasn't trustworthy enough to commit to a marriage he has already sworn to before God and man, with a family at stake, when his child is going to see that misbehavior. Now, we're supposed to trust him with the entire country?

I won't even get into all the reasons he's a loser politically...personally, he's slime, and that's enough for me to just say no to Rudy.

[Jameison]

"We'll see how easily Rudy can sell that to Red America. Given how he's backing away from gays and his previous gun statements, I'd say he understands his personal opinions don't appeal to the states a Republican must win"

Every politician has to do make adjustments to some of their personal opinions, for the sake of his party.
That's what political parties are there for, different people with similar ideas, but plenty of differences, who come together and develop policies which are common to most of them. Heck even me and my own brothers don't agree on everything, let alone complete strangers
Guiliani will do what Guiliani needs to be done.

As far as the guns are concerned, I'll just cut and paste what durasell has said below:

"America is a diverse country. The landscape differs greatly as do the people and their customs. It's foolish to apply some laws across the board and expect them to be effective"


There are lots of laws that make very good sense in say Alabama, that don't neccessarily make the same sense in New York City.

For the most part,different states will do what serves them best
That's why we have states.
Having lived in New York for along time, and knowing the people here, I don't necessarily think the sexact same gun laws in the South will necessarily work here.

Like has been pointed out before, Guiliani managed to get a massive fall in crime, even with the current gun laws that we have, and things were REALY bad when he took over, and New York City is one of the toughest places to govern on the planet
That is not an accident.

Way I see ur, governing New York City effectively for 8 years trumps being the Governor of a big chunk of the small states that we have, like VT any day.

[Jameison]

"I think Guliani can and will"

If even BJ Klinton won twice, I don't see why Guiliani can't.
He is a far better and more effective administrator, and far better human being than BJ Klinton ever was. Plus if, as is looking increasingly likely, Guiliani has to face Der Schlick's wife, Hitlery, then it's a no brainier. No conservative in their right minds will vote for Hitlery. Its' tantamount to committing suicide in my opinion.

"As I said it's up to the Social conservatives to come up with an electable candidate"

I don't see any social conservatives doing any good in any of the pols so far.
But hey, we have some ways to go to 2008 yet.
But so fat it's not looking too good for the social conservative candidates (I am excluding the snake McCain from the social conservative list for the the meantime)

[Jameison]

"I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two... just different designer labels. "

Yeah?
They are simply too many to list.

Just one example(a simple search at FR will come up with literally hundreds of the crimes carried out by BJ Klinton and Hitlery) that shows the difference between Guiliani and the Klintoons:

"In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody -- the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, "Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library." Says Freeh, "That's a fact that I am reporting.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1498146/posts

By contrast Guiliani told that Saudi Prince to STUFF IT, when the sucker tried to somehow justify the 9/11 attacks while donating $10 million to the 9/11 victims.
Now that's the kind of man I want for President.

[Jameison]

" will never, ever, vote for Rudy. I will vote third party if he is the GOP nominee"

You can vote for who you like.
As at now, however, Guiliani seems to be favored by more Republicans than any other prospective GOP presidential candidate.
That's what counts.
Heck there is not the candidate born on the planet, that EVERYONE is going to like or vote for.
I will not lose sleep over some mountain man refusing to vote for Guiliani.
It's called democracy.
So go vote for your third candidate.

[Jameison]

"I just can't imagine very many Republicans and/or conservatives voting for him"

I can.
That's why Rudy's been consistently ahead in the polls, without even campaigning, ahead of a McCain who's basically been campaigning since the start of year.

[Jameison]

"People who go to high-priced prep schools in New York, who are perfectly comfortable living in a police state like New York City (where the 40,000 police officers are among the only people in a city of 8 million who are legally permitted to carry guns), "

I think you are pretty far gone in your fantasy world.
It may be time for you to get back to reality..and check up on your facts.