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 ...
Giuliani would make a great Sec of State, but he can't be president because he's supports illegal immigration. The 40 percent of the GOP base that's supports importing poverty is too small to carry him. But I think he's better than McCain.
Still, I couldn't vote for him because of his support of illegal aliens. I hope the GOP leadership doesn't pull a Dole manuever this time around and chase everyone away from the ballot box with no-win candidates.
"You know what New York City was like before he became Mayor, and after he left office. Are you saying he deserves no credit for the the successful results?"
doesn't mean we want him to be president.
Sure seems like it, doesn't it? It's amazing, the vitriol that this potential candidate inspires. What he did in NYC never seems to amount to much, unless it happened in the last three months of his mayoralty.
We have one poster who refers to him as a gutless coward, which is interesting considering how many before him were unwilling or unable to take on organized crime at the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center--or the likes of the leaders of a prominent mosque on 125th St. We have another who says he doesn't play nicely with others, as though that's a bad thing. Sure worked around here.
But coming from people who think Kelly was a subordinate of someone he never worked for (although Bratton was actually a subordinate of Kelly's)...or that Bratton created 'Broken Windows'...or that his dismissal meant so much considering Jack Maple thought it worthwhile to stick around, not to mention the fact that crime continued to decline under each succeeding Police Commissioner...or that Giuliani ever got control of the Board of Ed...the mind boggles.
None of this, though, comes close to the poster who in a Rudy thread some weeks back dismissed a NY Post editorial on the basis that its author, John Podhoretz, is a 'neo-Marxist.' For Pete's sakes.
Given these sorts of posts I sometimes find it difficult to believe how conservatives could get so many things wrong. Let them go & support whomever they want for the GOP primary, even if they need to base their decisions on all of this inaccurate information. I just pray it doesn't result in a Hillary Clinton presidency, which is the unfortunate conclusion I come up with every time I weigh all the variables & engage in the premature game of predictions more than two years prior to the Presidential election.
Wombat, I mostly agree with you, but I think if you cooled it on the emotion you wouldn't give people any ammo with which to attack your posts with any validity. It's easy enough to agree or disagree, to support or denigrate a candidate or voting bloc, without resorting to name-calling, especially the Nazi stuff...though as much as I loathe her, I get plenty sick of the term 'Hitlery,' which makes me think people using it simply can't tell the difference between a misguided & poisonous woman who is, yes, a socialist, but from what I can see not quite capable of Naziesque or Stalinesque action, and military dictators who murdered millions upon millions of people. But that's just me. Regardless, I find it improbable that anyone here detests her as much as I do, but that's why I won't give her supporters any ammo by using such an unspeakably foolish nickname.
Rudy didn't just clean up this town, he re-shaped it & made it feasible to continue as a business, entertainment, sports, and financial capital. In the hands of Dinkins & the progressively ineffective Koch, that was not ever going to happen. In spite of any & all liberal views, the 'baby-killing'-type rhetoric is horribly overblown, and if he's not conservative enough for some, that doesn't change that I see his accomplishments as pointing towards him being by far the most qualified candidate, period.
I accept that this does not make me more-conservative-than-thou, but at least I don't spout misinformed nonsense about what he did, and what he didn't do. He was the most important public figure in this town since Robert Moses, and that's saying something, even if someone out there somehow thinks us NYers put ourselves above flyover country or something, which is absolutely ridiculous. Anybody who doesn't support him--don't vote for him, plain and simple.
Content yourselves with whatever choice you make, that will by default mean that you support a candidate whose resume pales by comparison. Liberal/Rockefeller Republican? That's a hollow label considering what the man did for this town, which was in a state considered way too far gone to ever become orderly, profitable, or governable ever again.
If I see a better candidate, I'll be happy to support them. All of the man's skeletons aside, and policies of his that I, like others here, tend to disagree with, I maintain he's most qualified. Period.
Very well-stated. There's nothing wrong with opposing Guiliani in the primary on principal- in fact, I have qualms about him, myself- but he doesn't warrant the name-calling that occasionally appears when his name comes up.
Well, excuse me. If you read the rest of my post, you see the factual errors & fallacies put forth by those who are so focused on their pet issues that they are not willing to support what we have seen to be an effective politician, and one who is not as liberal as some around here would have you think.
My NY-Centric view of this politician includes a lot of memories, far more than just crime reduction, not all good, but most that occurred prior to 9/11.
Perhaps chief among them was enacting policies that liberals hated at first but came to see as wise, just, and necessary. And that's the key to a lot of what he did here: he changed the minds of a lot of people who now don't look at things like the knee-jerk liberals they once were. That's more important to me than his views on gays. And it's something that no other possible candidate has as much potential to do, given the opportunity. I know that finding a way to throw around references to homos or make lame Ted Kennedy or Helen Thomas jokes is of paramount importance around here, but I like the idea that even liberals can learn to see things from another point of view, one that's a lot closer to the one that many of us on this site view as being a far more rational way of looking at things.
For those of you for whom this is an unimportant trifle, carry on. For those who haven't seen it enough times in these threads, I think you're due for another 'gun-grabbing, cross-dressing, baby-killing' cliche-spout. Have at it.
This is a big sticking point for me about Rudy. The kingmakers in the GOP have never been comfortable with a lot of the social issue stuff. Too icky, too Southern for the taste of the Northeasterners who predominate the leadership. Rudy gets in and wins, forget about conservatism in the GOP for good, as they'll have proved that they no longer need social conservatives, thus breaking that dependency on a constituency that's too pushy and demanding for their tastes. You do see some of that here with some posters who support this view.
Between the GOP going left after '08 with Rudy getting in and the demographic shifts that'll put the Dems in permanent control in another 20 years or so, barring any major political re-alignment events, now to 2016 will likely be the last chance for any semblance of conservatism, either socially or fiscally. At that point between the "seasoned" citizens wanting to protect their benefits and all the newly-amestied illegals voting Dem, the GOP's going down unless it goes left.
Oh well. Warm up some more popcorn to watch in lurk mode...
I have qualms, too. But it's like nobody ever considered the possibility that looking at an issue like, say, gun control, is something a man might approach differently, depending on what exactly the constituency and jurisdiction are. And how those views might differ for a larger area, how they might be expanded to go with the territory, rather than a hard line that is geared towards an urban area.
To jump to the conclusion that his views on guns would be applied towards the nation as a whole in lockstep with how the issue was approached in a town like NYC isn't far off from thinking that he's endorsed the idea that nationwide property zoning should encourage the building of nothing but hi-rises, even on Kansas farmland.
Next, someone will hit me with a plethora of quotes about his stance on guns. Have fun, folks. I've seen 'em before. I think, sorry to say, it's a bit of a red herring.
Moreover, get used to "President Hillary Clinton." Because that's what those of you who think you speak for the whole 'base' will be responsible for. If that's not enough to shake you from insisting that you have to stick by your principles, good for you, that is your right.
You must've enjoyed Jimmy Carter.
So childish name-calling is something that 'true conservatives' engage in? Forgive me, I thought true conservatives had a measure of dignity that allowed them to refrain from the sort of nonsense that I see so many rabid lefties engaged in.
I don't like it when it comes from either side, thank you very much.
How nice it is to know that not only am I not considered a 'true conservative' because I won't post the same pictures of Rudy in drag we see on EVERY one of these threads, nor agree that this name-calling is necessary, but expressing my opinion that this is childish nonsense that doesn't resemble civilized debate makes me a NYer who considers himself somehow above the rest of flyover country or something?
If you'd like to debate the issues, fine. Every single Rudy thread has the same name-calling & drag pics. Every one. Is that what true conservatism is about to you? Must flyover country stoop to that level rather than simply stating the reasons why they feel Giuliani does not represent their values or views, and they therefore are not willing to support him?
I guess that's SO difficult. Although it strikes me that most folks who don't support Giuliani have absolutely no need to resort to such juvenile antics. To them, I have no problem agreeing to disagree.
To the folks who throw around those terms, some of the others I mentioned, and post all this stuff about Bratton, Kelly, and others they haven't the first clue about based on the wildly incorrect assertions in their posts, thanks for reducing the debate to what it is around here. It's clearly in your interests to suggest that us NYers consider ourselves to be the sort of elitists & narcissists who don't give a damn about what the rest of the country thinks, because someone who believes Kelly was a Giuliani subordinate or that Bratton invented Broken Windows might actually believe what you're selling, too.
Enjoy the fantasy.
"I actually wear a Stetson and pointy boots cowgirl..."
Ah, just what I thought. I could respond with a bunch of stereotypes regarding the Stetson-wearing, wanna-be cowboy type, but I'll refrain from the "Brokeback Mountain" referencese. After all, that's how YOU guys (try to) shout people like me (i.e. the one's that have committed the sin of breaking ranks and thinking for themselves) down. So far, I have been referred to by the lunatic fringe as just about every variation of "liberal" they can think of. The irony is that none would know a real liberal if one jumped up and down naked, holding a sign that said "I'm a liberal!" in the middle of of crowded movie house.
And you can forget the "cowgirl" shyte, Shi*tkicker.
Please show me exactly where I've "politically correct" or espused a "UN-type" opinion in any of these posts; I'll be more than happy to explain to you why you're wrong, in very small words so as not to confuse you further.
I've debated you on several topics before Francis, and find you to be a small-minded, hard-headed individual who wouldn't know the truth, or a fact, if either ran up and bit you on the backside. You have a proclivity to spout nonsense, and a really bad habit of repeating the same things ad nauseum, ad infinitum, as if these were universal truths enscribed on stone tablets, without seeming to have either investigated them, or even thought about them much, before you regurgitate them.
To jump to the conclusion that I am still an American CITIZEN when in New York City??? You are an idiot...
Get over it... you are not going to win the Democrat nomination in the Republican primary...
The only way you liberals can win is to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary...
"The only way you liberals can win is to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary..."
Which is exactly the plan.
>It is the unprincipled approach to politics exhibited by YOU that will lead to a "President Hillary".
So now, an approach to politics that involves looking towards the candidate I feel is most qualified, instead of the one that 'traditional conservatives' like best because he tows their line on their issues, is unprincipled.
An approach to politics that involves thinking that the most qualified candidate just might be the guy who turned around NYC. Eh, I guess that's small potatoes, so far as an accomplishment goes, now, isn't it. So much so that so many who know so much are so willing to assign the credit to people who don't deserve as much of it as they may believe.
An approach to politics that involves thinking that the guy who brought the welfare rolls down to four or five hundred thousand, from well over a million, just might be the most qualified candidate.
An approach to politics that says that George Allen, Mike Pence, Tom Tancredo, John McCain, and Condoleeza Rice put together might well have not been able to do what this guy did. Who could've, besides Reagan? Maybe a guy named LaGuardia, but he'd been the last guy to do it. And while I don't remember the exact statistic, I think the murder rate went down something like 65% during Giuliani's mayoralty, which I don't think can be said for LaGuardia, and is an absolutely astonishing figure that, for me, trumps anything any of the people I mentioned have managed to accomplish combined.
I like all the carping about how awful the shape of the city he left for Bloomberg, who, despite how far he himself leans left, has managed to continue what Rudy started, for the most part, even with his FAR more liberal views & approach.
Think about this--you think Rudy's a liberal? Bloomberg is FAR more so, yet he was left a city that even his liberal policies are working for. Then again, he's no Dinkins, and he actually did something with his life. Still, it probably would've taken a Dinkins years to run this city back into the ground after the progress Giuliani made, and, in Bloomberg's fifth year, what Giuliani achieved has NOT been given back to the liberals.
But, that speaks to what I mentioned earlier, about CHANGING MINDS. People around here don't WANT the realities of the Dinkins era to return--ever. They see & understand the difference, and it was Giuliani who managed to change minds.
Not Tom Ognibene.
Again, for those who don't like Giuliani & his many foibles, or simply can't vote for him in good conscience, I certainly have no problem with that. But I focus my attention on the aspects of whether or not he's a qualified candidate, as defined by me, and even if you think that's an unprincipled way to go about it, it still reveals a range of accomplishment that I think a lot of people simply aren't familiar with. Either that, or they're so concerned about gays that they're not interested in results.
Like the results this guy achieved here, which NOBODY thought remotely possible. Or the bravest face anyone had, when the strongest among us lapsed into weeping, following 9/11. Meanwhile, I have confidence that his judicial choices would be far sounder than some here seem to think. But I don't base that on their hyperbole or remarks that clearly don't relate to the running of an entire country...only its largest city.
As for the Nazi comments:
What would YOU call an ideology/political movement in which:
1. The enforcement of lockstep adherence to ideological orthodoxy is the PRIMARY concern in all endeavors.
2. That when an individual is found lacking in terms of orthodoxy, or he/she sould poiint out a logical contradiction in that orthodoxy, he/she must be personally destroyed by a campaign of slander and/or personal attacks.
3. Where the ideology in question is believed to have the imprimitur of the Almighty.
4. Where the followers of said orthodoxy, when cornered logically and rhetorically, will resort to the immediate and vicious castigation of the person who exposed them.
5.Which continually harkens back to the folklore of the glorious past and which holds it up as an ideal to be re-achieved, right NOW, at the expense of progress.
6. That believes that human nature can be controlled by passing laws and then ruthlessly enforcing them, and which believes that laws passed by elected legislatures with the support of the voters (as in NY States gun laws, for example) are a threat to liberty when they infringe upon a behavior they DO approve of. This DESPITE the fact that such laws were duly created and voted upon by democratic means.
7. That certain social and political movements should be criminalized, their practitioners criminalized, and their rights systematically stripped in order to "save" the country? Their (the Movement's)rights, of course, will be upheld to the Nth degree.
8. Regularly characterizes those who disagree with them (and worse, can disagree with them in words with more than four letters in them) as "the enemy".
9. Regularly tosses around political characterizations which are patently false and deliberately misconstrued (i.e. as in the use of the word "liberal" to mean something other than what it really does).
10. Is more than ready to jump all over it's oppositions contradictions, but which conspicuously ignores it's own.
11. Regularly re-writes history so that it's heroes are always presented as super-human titans who have been deliberately tarred and distorted by their enemies.
12. Believes that, ultimately, it will have to achieve it's aims by outright force of arms (hence, the skewed reading and interpretation of, and the inordinate emphasis placed upon, the 2nd Amendment), when it finally loses at the ballot box.
Sounds an awful lot like fascism to me.
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.