Posted on 09/02/2006 8:39:06 PM PDT by VictoryIsInevitable
The Conservative Case for Rudy Giuliani in 2008
John Hawkins of Right Wing News makes the conservative case against Rudy Giuliani for 2008. Hawkins’ piece largely consists of the same old anti-Rudy arguments wrapped in slightly new packaging, focusing a lot on Rudy’s decade-old socially liberal positions on a few cultural issues, as well as his Manhattanite personal life and some nonsense about unelectability (more on that later). As such, I think this is a great opportunity for someone to lay out the conservative case for Rudy in ‘08. And that someone might as well be me.
Giuliani: Pro-growth tax-cutter
Rudy Giuliani has proven, both during his tenure as mayor of New York and through his subsequent rhetoric, that he is a pro-growth Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Newt Gingrich. As mayor, Giuliani cut city taxes by more than eight billion dollars, reducing the tax burden on New Yorkers by 22%. Giuliani’s low-tax views remain intact. As Race42008 correspondent Kavon noted yesterday, Rudy’s recent visit to Minnesota included an emphasis on achieving economic growth via low taxes and less regulation on the economy. Rockefeller he ain’t; Rudy’s a Reagan Republican.
Rudy: Gingrich-style government reformer
Conservatives who liked Newt’s welfare reform and GWB’s attempt at entitlement reform have an ally in Rudy. As mayor, Giuliani reformed welfare in New York with the same tenacity as the class of ‘94 in Congress. Once again, this ain’t Christie Whitman we’re dealing with; Rudy’s a Newt Republican who also made a serious attempt to take on the teachers’ unions in NYC and fund school choice via charter schools. A President Giuliani means a conservative reformer who will fight for market-based revisions to our age-old bureaucratic messes in Washington.
Rudy Giuliani: Fiscal conservative
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani cut...
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
Okay, so you don't like the liberal magazine, The Nation. Okay. And you don't like principled conservatives who oppose Giuliani being the GOP nominee for 2008. Gotcha. Guess that makes you a political centrist, and by default, a supporter of the WashDC status quo. I take it you'll be voting for the liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani when the GOP primary season rolls around in about 16 months. Fine. Didn't realize FR had become populated by so many wishy-washy fencesitters, so willing to embrace loony leftwingers and high profile liberals. Carry on.
Dude, can't you read? Where did I call myself a CONSERVTIVE?
(Perish the thought!). Where did I call Giuliani one? The author called him one, not me. I also stated to another poster that I prefer Gingrich for president, but wouldn;t be adverse to a Giuliani Vice-Presidency. Little comprehension problem there, huh?
"Liberal" loon? Hardly. Voted for Reagan (twice), both Bushes (twice). What I am is a Republican (and a proud one) who wishes to God that sanity could be reintroduced to American political debate, and who absolutely deplores the constant appplication of "litmus tests" within a party that swears up and down that it hates "litmus tests", especially "litmus tests" that are rigged. My assertion has only been that Giuliani should be considered, but won't be for ridiculous reasons. I guess anyone who smashes your deeply-held (and poorly-understood-but-clung-to-like-a-liferaft) ideology MUST be a "liberal" (in the obviously vicious way in which you meant to use that word). Do yourself a favor: learn something about politics -- Republicans ARE HISTORICALLY AND POLITICALLY LIBERALS! What you really mean to say is "Progressive loon". Perhaps you should learn what the difference between a liberal and a progressive is, and then you'll find out that the Republican party is a classicly liberal party.
Thanks for the ready-to-post ton of rhetorical garbage you linked to, which, I guess, is supposed to substitute for actual debate. You'll send me links to fourteen thousand webpages, but not make an attempt to actually argue in your own words (probably because it's really hard to memorize eveything you're supposed to say). Bulk reading does not substitute for argument.
And I have news for you: Giuliani (or, rather, classical republican) politics WILL sell all over the country, because the alternatives are communism and fascism. You can stop with the "flyover country pride" BS. People are opportunistic parasites; when something comes along that suits their needs and interests (like compitence), they will flock to it, even if comes with something they don't like.
As for your "No Thanks" comment, well, I'd apply that to the current crop of "conservatives" in office today:
* I remind you that after a massive public battle, two "conservatives" were appointed to the Supreme Court, ready to shoot down a whole host of "liberal" decisions from affirmative action to abortion to the Kelo case. Haven't done a thing. In fact, haven't heard a word from them on anything seriously important in a while, except for that time Roberts recused himself. If that's conservatism, then No Thank You.
* I remind you that after all the talk of "reform of entitlements" that a republican-dominated congress folded on Social Security Reform and Medicare Reform, and that both programs will continue to eat up ever-larger slabs of the Federal budget for the forseeable future. But, hell, no problem getting a majority vote to get a resolution to ask the courts to intervene on behalf of a vegetable about to be mercy-killed. If that's conservatism in action, then No Thank You.
* I remind you that the republican-dominated congress spent five years spending tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave, increasing deficits, and didn't give a damn until it was handed the bill to rebuild a sunken city where a republican couldn't get elected if you offered free booze and hookers at the polling station (they know: they've tried), and THEN reigning in federal spending and seeking accountability with that 200 billion estimate became a hot-button issue. If that's conservatism in action, then No Thank You.
* I seem to recall somewhere that it was a conservative who led the charge to "get the money and special interests" out of American politics, in order to "clean it up", and instead gave us the biggest assault on political speech and the best shield incumbants ever had. I refer to "Campaign Finance Reform" which is three lies for the price of one.If that's conservatism, then No Thank You.
* Five years after I walked out of a burning 1 WTC, the organizer of this attrocity is still walking around free somewhere, and hasn't been brought to justice for the deaths of my four friends who weren't as lucky. Somehow, along the way, finding Usama Bin Hidin' became less important. Instead, we can spend a ton of money and invest a lot of effort in making sure people don't bring a Diet Coke on board their flight to Duluth or Boise. If this is conservatism, then No Thank You.
* I remind you that a host of "conservatives" who scream from their bully pulpits in Congress about "law and order" and "keeping the American people safe", have recently caved-in to the construction, restaurant, agriculture, tourism and landscaping industries (amongst others) and refuse to enforce American immigration laws, but can instead crow about "Paths to citizenship" and "Guest worker programs" as viable alternatives. If this is conservatism, then No Thank You.
Reagan nominated O'Connor, Bush 41 nominated David Souter, Bush 43 wanted to nominate Harriet Miers. Giuliani is more liberal than any of those three men, I see him going for a compromise candidate. Conservatives, do NOT support this man, even McCain is a better conservative choice.
Correction:
Voted for Reagan once (first presidential election I ever voted in was 1984). Sorry, got carried away. But did vote for both Bushes twice.
Illegal immigration... there is no "conservative" case to be made for Julie-Annie...
"because he's the only name out there right now that I don't think will flinch in the face of the Islamic threat."
Rudy is the ONLY name out there who has the _______s to be tough on the WOT. All the rest of both sides are too PC.
If Mr. Giuliani is so happy to just sit on his hands and let Mrs. Clinton be his senator, why should any Republican trust that incompetence on the national stage???
The only way the Left can win is to destroy the Republican Party from within. They have lost the public argument and cannot win on the issues, they have to have despotic judges do it for them and they have to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary.
Second Amendment
(And, it is incompetent to allow Mrs. Clinton the launch pad of a senate seat to campaign...)
The title needs to contain a BARF alert.
If he goes for it I'm game. I like him.
I don't vote for liberals.
The problem is not "Rudy in drag", I saw that picture several times. We only need to know what kind of "conservatism" he would embrace as President. First of all, I'm waiting for a change concerning his views about abortion.
Hmm anti 2nd amendment,pro abortion, pro debt increases, pro gay marriage, pro illegal immigration.
In real world terms, Rudy made NYC safer......crime was down in NYC.....and that's about it. Rudy gives conservatives almost no reason to vote for him.
A leopard may turn grey but it can't change it's spots even after over 20 years on the national stage.
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.