Posted on 08/25/2006 9:23:43 AM PDT by veronica
As it now appears a 2008 Rudy run is a sure thing, I thought it was about time to update that column to take a look at how Rudy is looking right about now, almost a full year later. The event that inspired my previous column on Giuliani’s presidential qualities was the response to Hurricane Katrina. The anniversary of the record breaking storm is only days away and provides another reminder of one of the reasons Rudy Giuliani is considered one of the top contenders for the GOP nomination.
Giuliani touches down in three states Tuesday, attending events for Hutchinson, Illinois gubernatorial hopeful Judy Baer Topinka, and Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Giuliani, who has topped several national 2008 presidential polls in recent months, was to headlined a cocktail reception in Cleveland Monday for two-term Sen. Mike DeWine. (AP Photo/Mike Wintroath) Katrina showed America what an inept response to a national emergency looked like. They had seen, four years earlier, what a competent response to a national emergency looked like when Mayor Giuliani took control, led recovery efforts and calmed a nation in shock. His performance earned him Time’s 2001 designation as Man of the Year and the title of“Mayor of the World.” He was even crowned an honorary knight by Queen Elizabeth in recognition of the service he performed.
In reaction to the deficiencies of the Katrina response, Americans let it be known that they want a President who is engaged in the details when disaster strikes. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush was able to provide moral and, even spiritual, leadership and leave the specifics of the recovery effort to people like Mayor Giuliani. Katrina taught us that when a Mayor Nagin, not a Mayor Giuliani, is in charge, the chief executive better step in right away and make things work – or he better at least give the appearance that he is doing that.
A year ago, in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, especially in contrast to the politicians who had just failed so miserably, Rudy Giuliani looked really good. At the time I said he looked downright presidential. A year later, as we observe the one year anniversary of Katrina and, in two weeks observe the five year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he looks even better.
Giuliani is leading early polls in Iowa and is even being well received in the very important primary state of South Carolina, in spite of his Yankee status. There are still some pitfalls for Giuliani, but nothing that did not exist a year ago, or even a decade ago. Although there are most likely some GOP primary voters who are not aware of all of Giuliani’s positions, it is unlikely that voters will be particularly shocked by them.
Giuliani’s positions on abortion, gay marriage and gun control have not changed in the past year (at least not so far as the public has been informed) but the emphasis that is likely to be placed on those issues may have. There are some voters who will never vote for a President Giuliani due to his position on abortion, or gay rights. The confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito, though, may have reminded voters that one of the main ways executives affect public policy on such issues is through court appointments.
Through President Bush’s judicial appointments over the past five years, public attention has been focused on the importance of the judiciary, compared to that of the executive, in deciding such issues. Instead of the specifics of Giuliani’s positions on abortion or gay rights or gun control, the focus is likely to be on what kind of judges he would appoint and what their positions are on cases involving those issues.
Another criticism of Giuliani is the subject of his past marital troubles. Those on the left crying Republican hypocrisy for giving Giuliani a pass after criticizing Bill Clinton for his “bimbo eruptions,” and later impeaching him, are particularly peculiar. Evidently many Democrats today don’t see any distinction between the case of Giuliani and that of Bill Clinton.
The case against Giuliani is one of marital infidelity. The case against Bill Clinton includes, among other things, a parade of women claiming sexual harassment, multiple women claiming to have been harassed by private eyes working on behalf of the Clintons, one woman claiming rape, and evidence (including his own words on tape) that he used his influence to get state jobs for women with whom he had affairs. Of course, everyone remembers Clinton’s affair with an intern just a few years older than his daughter, in the Oval Office, meeting with her more times than some members of his cabinet and conducting dozens of phone-sex calls with her setting up a blackmail security threat scenario usually reserved for Tom Clancy novels, then trying to smear her as a lying psycho stalker until the infamous blue dress appeared.
I could continue and even eventually get into the actions that led to the articles of impeachment, but it is not necessary. To witness the complete confusion of Democrats who cannot see the difference in the two cases is to see the incredible legacy Bill Clinton left his party. Even an affair and messy divorce look good in comparison to that. Another reason I don’t see Giuliani’s past marital problems as dashing his presidential aspirations, though, has nothing to do with Democrats, but rather with those he would likely face in a GOP primary.
As Kate O’Beirne pointed out recently, “Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon."
Events between now and November 2008 will determine which issues ultimately play the biggest role in voters’ choice for President. Over the next two weeks, though, as Americans observe the anniversaries of Katrina and 9/11, the issues of leadership in times of crisis and how best to fight the war on terror will make for an excellent opportunity for Rudy Giuliani to shine.
Rudy is, however, a fiscal conservative. Consider:
* Giuliani cut taxes in NYC by 22 percent, or $8 billion.
* Rudy's economy produced over 400,000 jobs, the strongest 7-year gain on record.
* Rudy turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a surplus.
* Giuliani reduced the size of government by cutting the city payroll by 19 percent (when was the last time a president of either party actually sent lazy civil servants packing?).
* Rudy slowed the growth of government to below the rate of inflation.
* Rudy did all of this while maintaining services that benefit most people, like law enforcement and education.
Rudy did for NYC what the Republicans should be doing at the federal level: cutting unnecessary parts of government, making the state work more efficiently, enhancing necessary public services, and doing it all while keeping taxes low and the budget balanced. This puts Rudy to the right of our last three presidents on fiscal matters. Fiscal conservatives have a candidate in Rudy.
http://poliprogs.blogspot.com/2006/06/rudy-fiscal-conservative.html
I reject completely the moronic premise that Rudy Giuliani is the only potential Republican candidate who can continue to successfully prosecute the War on Terror. Before 9/11 and the current War on Terror, especially during the initial primary elections, would ANYONE have thought that George W. Bush could have done what he's been able to do? Not hardly. But he HAS been successful. This ridiculous stuff about Rudy being the second coming of George S. Patton is just so much bovine feces.
Right....That's why he ran on the Liberal Party ticket and was endorsed by the Liberal Party. Because he is a fiscal conservative...Right...
Despite the labels, Rudy resurrected NYC's fiscal morass, inherited from the woefully inept David Dinkins. It is because of Rudy Giuliani that Business returned to Manhattan - Disney and Virgin to name two. Labels notwithstanding, Rudy's Administration was fiscally responsible and NYC prospered because of it.
We cannot implement the war against Islamic Fascism if Wes Clark is at the Department of Defense, Ambassador Holbrooke is at State, John Edwards is Attorney General -- you get the idea.
Giuliani has been behind Bush 100% and will appoint people who support the Bush Doctrine.
No victory, no spoils = we get stuck with garbage like Janet Reno again. America loses.
It's now apparent that Giuliani purchased the city's good times partially with borrowed money and left his successor, Mike Bloomberg, holding a bag of debt. New York City went from a $3 billion budget surplus in 1998 to a $4.5 billion deficit after Giuliani left office. This mismanagement of prosperity is a big part of his legacy. Giuliani left the city's finances in a mess...It lists a few things Giuliani did that weren't even near being fiscally conservative:
- New York City went from a $3 billion budget surplus in 1998 to a $4.5 billion deficit after Giuliani left office.
- Added 25,000 government employees patronage hires to the city's payroll after promising to cut the work force.
- Giuliani's borrowing practices increased the city's debt burden by 50 percent.
- Partly because of Giuliani, New York City is now the biggest debtor in the nation outside of the federal government with $42 billion in loans outstanding.
I like this tidbit from the article:
During the 1960s Giuliani was a self-described "Robert Kennedy Democrat." He identified with RFK as a liberal Catholic prosecutor. He volunteered for RKF's 1968 presidential campaign while he was a student at NYU Law School. Giuliani also voted for George McGovern in 1972. During the liberal 1960s, he was a liberal.He's a liberal. He's not even in the same building as conservative. He's only a Republican because...and this comes from his own mother, Helen Giuliani:But in 1975 Giuliani switched his party registration from Democrat to Independent when he got a job in Gerald Ford's Justice Department, according to his mentor Harold "Ace" Tyler.
"He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He's definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn't. He still feels very sorry for the poor."
So, go find a Republican candidate who isn't a RINO and throw your support behind him. Rudy is a liberal and he deserves what he's going to get here from me and from others who wish to promote conservatism and fight liberalism.
So, support and elect a real Republican. The election is over two years out and Rudy is definitely not the only Republican candidate out there by a long shot.
Giuliani has been behind Bush 100% and will appoint people who support the Bush Doctrine.
What? You're claiming to be a psychic?! So, Rudy has a demonstrably liberal mindset but somehow he's going to ignore all of that and appoint good, conservative justices to the Supreme Court?! How stupid do you think conservatives are to believe that horse crap?
No victory, no spoils = we get stuck with garbage like Janet Reno again. America loses.
Again, and this may be a news flash for you, there are actually other Republicans who may run for President and win.
Why are you defending a liberal, pro-abortion, pro-radical gay agends, pro-gun grabbing RINO on a conservative forum?
The content of the article, especially that which I quoted, is not even close to being Marxist. Stick with the material at hand. Deal with the facts stated, try to debunk them, but the facts are the facts until then.
" Again, and this may be a news flash for you, there are actually other Republicans who may run for President and win."
And again, their names are Allen, Romney, and McCain. Gingrich, Pence, and Tancredo will get P'wned, badly.
McCain is reliable on 80% of the issues but showboats often where he disagrees with Republicans to get press. McCain polls extremely well against Democrats, including Hillary. However, McCain has Howard Dean head issues which makes his chances less than predictable.
Allen's the best out of the bunch on the issues, and has ran campaigns against tough opponents before. He's also dull, and has a tendency to do stupid things that will be exploited by a competent opponent like the Clintons.
Romney, a good fundraiser, has the looks and public speaking totally down. However, he's a conservative in a liberal state, which means he'll have to flipflop away from a few liberal positions and stay flipflopped for the national election, something that won't work if he tries to play it both ways Kerry-style.
And lastly, there's Giuliani, who's been behind the WOT 100%, has the star power from 911, and has said nothing but praise of President Bush during his term. Giuliani's problem is the same as Romney's problem, plus Giuliani's got some personal baggage. All polls show Giuliani stomping every Dem candidate, so the primary is his big challenge should he run.
These are our choices, and I understand completely what I'm getting with each, along with the odds of each candidate winning.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your terrible spelling and your animosity towards the socially conservative base of the Republican Party.
Blackirish is a liberal mole...
Giuliani is a Trojan Horse and has done nothing to curtail illegal immigrants ripping off the city of New York...
But, since Giuliani is so happy to sit on his hands and let Mrs. Clinton be his senator, why the hell should any Republicans trust in that incompetence?
WHY do you think that? Be specific.
What is more important than preseving our society? Give up that so a Rino can "maybe" be tough on the WOT? Get real.
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.