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.
He's not agnostic on the matter. He clearly states that the mission of FR is to fight liberals and liberalism. Rudy is plainly, to anyone with any sort of discernment, a liberal whether he calls himself a Republican or not. Heck, he even ran on the Liberal Party ticket, was endorsed by the Liberal Party, and appointed the Liberal Party chairman to a top level position in his administration. For starters. What the #&*$ does a person have to do before you realize that they're liberal!!!? You seem to be blinded by the R after his name. And that is just plain moronic. So you pro-liberal Rudy "nutters" can STFU or take it to a liberal forum.
Uh, I'll let that post speak for itself. :)
Now there is some serious irony!
"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."
The Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore Democrat way of dealing with Islamic fascism is radically different than the Giuliani-Bush method.
And yes, Giuliani has been vocally behind President Bush 100% on the war on Islamic fascism, something I can't say about other Republicans lately.
I said other Republicans will do just as well on the WOT than Guiliani. Guilani doesn't have a lock on the issue although obviously he'll be better than any Rat President.
Giuliani/RICE - now there's the winning ticket!
Because there is little difference except one looks better in drag?
Oh for God's sake. He meant that Giuliani and Hillary Clinton aren't that different politically. What he wrote isn't different from "Hillary A or Hillary B," it just came off that way because he called Hillary a name many members of FreeRepublic did. He wasn't comparing Giuliani to Hitler.
LOL. Well, that rules out Condi "I love racial preference" Rice.
The justice department is not political. And McCain also spoke at the 2004 GOP convention.
The Rudy haters have company:
The Village Voice, CBS,NBC and David Dinkins think Rudy would be a horrible choice....That's why I think he'll win.
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm
I do. He was in the middle literally and fuguratively) of the WTC for a long time.
And he is a tough SOB. I do not think he'd be putting up with the pandering and PC as we have been for the last five years.
My point is that New York City is such a radical communist rat-hole that anyone who succeeds in managing it is by definition inherently unqualified to serve as President of the United States.
It's no accident that his candidacy has been pushed by big-government "neo-conservative" globalists with New York City roots -- like John Podhoretz (who actually came out a couple of weeks ago shilling for a Giuliani-Lieberman ticket in 2008), Bill Kristol, etc.
He also refused to obey Federal laws that said that NYC law enforcement must cooperate with INS. He made NYC a sanctuary city that openly disregarded Federal law. He even SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be able to ignore the law and when he lost in court (after two appeals, dammit) he still said that he would ignore the law and he did. Some pro-law enforcement "conservative" he is.
and I really don't give a damn if he wore a dress as a gag during a charity event.
Rudy has done the cross dressing thing over and over and over again. He even did it for a Pride Agenda (radical gay group) fund raiser. It is a serious character flaw and it demonstrates that the dignity that was brought back to the White House after it was fumigated following the Clinton years and George W. Bush moved in, may be lost. If the cross dressing thing wasn't partnered with RUdy's alignment with the radical gay agenda it wouldn't matter as much either. But it does.
the same people trashing him for that, don't say a word about the Bushes (Laura included) performances at some of the washington press dinners over the years.
I sure did. And the same Rudy lovers climbed all over me for condemning the First Lady's crude public behavior.
and so do most states and cities - immigration enforcement is a federal issue. we can't expect city police to run around hunting down illegals, especially given that everyone knows the INS doesn't do much about it even when they are found.
Colin Powell spoke at the 2000 GOP convention, and served in both Bush administrations. That guy's a Democrat through and through.
They don't look at tough consistent management and leadership styles.
I'm and avid gun lover, but that is not the sole issue in voting for the President of the United States.
Except to another 5 to 10 million unborn children who would be legally murdered under the one or two terms served by those two pro-aborts. Not to mention the millions more that would be murdered after their terms because they not only did nothing to stop abortion in America, but they actually worked to support it by appointing pro-abort judges, signing pro-abort laws, and generally promoting the liberal, pro-abort cause.
I think that would be a nice bumpersticker from that loser duo.
I think all Republican presidents would conduct it aggressively, but probably only Rudy could get the country behind enough him to actually succeed in doing so. The latest debacle in Lebanon, mostly orchestrated by the pressured Condi and W, is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing we need to avoid any more of, and the fate of Western Civilization itself may be in the balance. ALL OTHER CONCERNS fade to silliness by comparison.
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.