"All you Freepers boys voting for me are making me feel pretty."
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.
" And that's why conservatives, like those on Free Republic, need to get busy to put a stop to it."
Step up to the plate and advocate a candidate.
If you're not playing to win, you're playing to lose. And that makes you look like a pimp for Hillary.
Well Veronica it is related to the thread as Rudy had no problem doing it while pandering to those groups.
Ha ha ha ha ha .............
I'd like to see some emphasis on tax reform, tort reform, vouchers
Dude, did you read the positions Rudy's taken on those issues (above)???
The whole God, gays...guns stuff ...instead of competent day to day conservative governance won't work in this election cycle.
That's what Howard Dean was always complaining about :)
Why is it that someone is alleged to be a fiscal conservative that he is somehow considered an actual conservative. Conservatism has a lot more to it than just the alleged ability to by somewhat conscious about government spending and taxation.
If conservatism was a crime that Rudy was charged with, the judge would throw the case out of court for lack of evidence.
Go shill for the cross dressing, pro-abortion, pro-radical gay agenda, pro-gun grabbing, pro-Democrat LIBERAL somewhere else.
Hitler killed more than 6 million persons. Are you actually comparing Giuliani to Hitler? You are an idiot.
Why don't you shove your liberal shilling where the sun don't shine. And put your ridiculous, illogical comments (like the one above) there too.
Who died and made you JimRob?
FR supports conservative Republicans, not RINOs.
If Hillary is on the Democrat Party ticket,
then my vote goes to Rudy.
No regrets.
I see. They have to pass the "Spiff" test first. Who is your horse in this presidential race?
Now I know you are completely full of sh!t. Someone who can credibly claim that he is "conservative" on about 5% of the various issues in America today isn't conservative at all -- and you are either completely ignorant or deliberately disingenuous when you try to claim otherwise.
I'd love to know when the words "libertarian" and "Giuliani" started showing up in the same sentence -- other than in a comedy routine, of course.
Te post covered
as well, who is it exactly that is gay-obsessive?
Why not just go directly to DU or Kos?
Because he wants to be in a forum that oppose this long list of things Rudy supports.
If [liberal] is on the [political party] ticket,
then my vote goes to [conservative].
No regrets.
A barf alert for a liberal puke. Just another philandering libber who wants our guns and loves the gays. Hillary will wreck this guy if he's nominated. He didn't finish last time. Will he this time???
It's like a choice between Pierre LaVal and Vidkun Quisling.
Rudy ain't conservative, period. On anything except for possibly being a hawk on the war on terror. That's it.
I know, as written in your homepage, "south park conservatives" tend to kneejerk at any social issues, but come on, it's written all there for your reading pleasure. The man is a New York liberal. End of story.
P.S.: "South park conservative" is just a title to sell books. It's better to just say "libertarian."
It's a little early. I'm waiting to see which real Republicans emerge as potential nominees. I know for a fact that it won't, under any circumstances, be McCain or Giuliani. I liked Pence before he started shilling for amnesty for illegal aliens and then lied about his proposed legislation. I may still be convinced to vote for him especially if the whole amnesty thing crashes and burns. Aside from that amnesty episode, Pence is probably my favorite. Allen isn't too bad, but the whole "Macaca" thing is going to hurt him and I doubt he will be the nominee. Romney? I can't get excited about him but I would vote for him in the general. Jeb Bush? I'd hold my nose and vote for him in the general. Tancredo? The most conservative of the entire bunch but I don't think he's going to run and I don't think he's ready for it anyway.
Getting behind a single candidate right this second, especially a liberal RINO like Giuliani, is pointless.
I could live with Giuliani if I can be convinced that he'll appoint conservative federal judges and will rein in federal spending. If I really believed he would do those things, his position on gay marriage wouldn't bother me. (Not sure about the gun control matter.)
I said a tummy ache because you sounded like you were about to barf.
FR supports conservative Republicans, not RINOs.
I haven't noticed Jim on Rudy threads, criticizing him, or objecting to threads with positive articles about him.
There are at least a dozen other Republicans who'll do a far better job at President than Rudy, including Jeb Bush, whom I'll even support if he runs despite the last name.
There are some good Republicans in the House who deserve a shot at the President. In fact, I think Congressmen would make far better candidates than Senators. Tancredo, Mike Pence, Sensennbrenner for starters. And you can bet cash money that Tancredo will fight a better WOT and won't succumb to the PC crowd. Tancredo or Pence will also address the exploding entitlement programs, SOMETHING THAT RUDY WON'T DO.
A vote for Rudy is simply a vote for the same old status quo, the gradual sinking in the quicksand of this country. And don't give me that BS about how Rudy will lead on the WOT, because no matter who's President the issue will have to be addressed anyway.
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.