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.
Well, with Rudy's liberal stance on almost every issue that will give a lot of single issue voters reason to oppose him.
Those two lawsuits, by the way, effectively placed Rudy Giuliani far to the left of Bill Clinton of all people.
Abortion, gay rights and anti-gun issues are the only discussion points among many here on FR. IMO
Who cares if a Democrat president allows Iran to give nukes to terrorists.
No matter what he says about judges, our candidate needs to show that he's extremely extreme, hold up an AK-47, call illegals racist slurs, and beat up a gay person. Otherwise he's just a liberal RINO.
New slogan
Guliani, because Hillary won't run as a Republican.
If you are placing the fate of Western Civilization in the hands of a secular, big-government liberal from New York City, then we might as well pack our bags and move to the South Pole.
I didn't get the impression that Blackirish is a shill. Are you okay? Stay away from your guns. Someone may get hurt.
"Guliani, because Hillary won't run as a Republican."
If Hillary R. Clinton were to run as a republican for president, the same people who pimp Rudolph Guliani would probably say something like: "we need to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop John Kerry."
Right. That's because someone in his administration had the brilliant idea to construct the city's central emergency command post in the basement of a building complex that had been a major terrorist target for years.
If Rudy were to be the GOP nominee in 2008, just watch how much play the MSM gives to the so-called "Jersey Girls" over that one.
We conservatives have a whole lot of work ahead of us, in getting the best conservative candidate secured as the GOP`s nominee for 2008. However, Giuliani is not that candidate. His social positions place him in the same catagory as Clinton, Gore and Carter. Its common knowledge that Giuliani is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-gun control and supports special right for homos and illegals. And Giuliani`s fiscal record of leaving NYCity with a $2-billion deficit and a $42-billion debt is definitely not something akin to fiscal responsibility. In addition, Giuliani's embarrassing private life and obvious political opportunism will not sit well with the vast majority of conservatives and probably not with most Americans either.
I'd say Giuliani has a long way to go convincing conservatives he's one of us and for good reason. Giulaini is not a conservative, he's a liberal. Period. Should Republicans choose Giulaini to be the nominee, the GOP will fracture into two camps, conservatives and the status quo. Lets not make that mistake. Since 1980 the GOP has nominated only pro-life candidates for Prez, while the GOP platform has been conservative to its core.
Giulaini is far out of the conservative mainstream and isn't what the Republican Party needs in 2008.
No doubt about it.
The Republicans crossed the divorcee rubicon with Ronald Reagan. It's not the issue it would have been 30 years ago.
If you gave me a field of McCain, Giuliani, Allen, Gingrich and Romney, my reaction would be:
"Is that the best we've got???"
Sadly, yes it may be. There's been no conservative to the right of Bush who isn't either damaged goods or seemingly incapable of building some national momentum. The Rove RINO-majority Senate has put most of conservatism on the backburner while spending like drunken liberals.
If there was a Reagan running in 2008, we could mop the floor with what's out there in both parties. Alas, the GOP has effectively marginalized itself from promoting a truly strong and conservative voice.
I am, however, looking forward to the first GOP ticket in over 30 years that doesn't have a Bush or a Dole on it.
Democrat Jim Webb, who's challenging Senator Allen in VA's Senate race, also served in the Reagan administration.
Should we vote for him too?
Well it's clear you people are losing the debate, since you're resorting to hysterical ad-hominems.
Triple E, they may have been ad-hominenms but they hardly sounded hysterical!
Someone who posts on a conservative forum in support of a liberal, and even lies and says that the liberal is actually a conservative, is by my definition shilling for that liberal.
so, show me the list of US big city police forces aggressively hunting down and rounding up illegal immigrants. what for? what does INS do with them when they get a referral?
Really?
No matter what he says about judges, our candidate needs to show that he's extremely extreme, hold up an AK-47, call illegals racist slurs, and beat up a gay person. Otherwise he's just a liberal RINO.
That sounds pretty hysterical - even suggests conservatives would use cheap, inaccurate, communist made rifles. Talk about hysteria!
You see, even the AK-47 is not sufficiently rightwing.
;)
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.