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 ...
Gee, thanks for the compliment. What a way to get a point across. Were you born this smart & charming?
>>"Eh, I guess that's small potatoes, so far as an accomplishment goes, now, isn't it."
>Yes, it is.
Then, at risk of sounding condescending, it would seem you are uninformed as to the monumental nature of the task of turning America's largest city around, let alone knowing what actually happened here.
>Pretty outlandish claim, that.
Then provide us with a list of their accomplishments, if you would. My 'unprincipled' approach towards politics includes examining what a candidate has achieved, not just what they claim to stand for or against.
>if you think *McCain* is a conservative we'd support, that just goes to show how out of touch New York "Republicans" are.
If you'd kindly show me where I suggested such a thing. I only included his name because he's considered a front-runner, not because I can't read what people think about him on this site. I haven't had much use for the guy for well over a decade, since I became more acquainted with him.
>>"Not Tom Ognibene. "
>Who on Earth is that? Is this some local NYC political reference you expect the rest of the country to care about?
I guess mentioning the name of a candidate who represented the Conservative Party in NYC is means for another non-NYer to lodge the charge that us NYers are oh-so NY-centric. Forgive me, I won't bother talking about Conservatives who have actually managed to gain elective office in our city...where liberals simply don't dominate as they once did. Gee, I wonder why that is. Oh, never mind, I just remembered we're dealing with folks here who aren't interested in the idea that the minds of liberals were changed by Giuliani 'liberal' policies like cutting taxes & moving welfare recipients to jobs. Oh, and something about crime reduction, using tactics & policies that were the polar opposite of the ideas employed by Police Commissioners appointed by...liberals...
>You confuse showing up on TV a few times and not totally failing at his job with leadership..
Not totally failing? Well, there were some failures, then, weren't there. Kindly detail some for us?
Yes, showing up on TV--not a few times, hourly, for days, the guy didn't sleep for probably a week--was quite an example of leadership & kept people going. Sorry you think it's some piddling nonentity of a task. Pataki couldn't even form words half the time. If Giuliani had broken down on camera, you'd probably criticize him for that. But he didn't, so I guess it's meaningless. Well, I say the hole in the ground I live around the corner from holds some meaning, and his was the only reassuring presence at the time, period.
>I and other conservatives will not vote for a pro-illegal immigration, anti-2nd Amendment, pro-partial birth abortion, liberal whether or not he calls himself a "Republican".
Okay, fine, don't. Who's asking you to? Just keep in mind, no mention of accomplishments or results in that old chestnut you guys keep dragging out, and, mark my words, it will lead to "President Hillary Clinton."
Count on it.
Hre's the text of the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You will notice (unless English is not your first language)that the first part of the sentence ("A well-regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free State...") condtions the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). In other words, it was necessary for the population to be armed in 1789 because the government was incapable of defending or policing them.
Now, let's delve into a bit of history when discussing the 2nd Amendment;
When that was written, this country had just been founded. It had no constituted armed forces and nearly no constituted law enforcement organizations. It was a country which was weak, dangerously exposed to it's enemies (Indians to the west, European powers all along it's borders, potential counter-revolutionaries within it's midst). It's only natural defenses were the Atlantic ocean and the Allegheny mountains. It was certainly lacking in funds, and in some areas, authority.
It only made sense that "well-regulated militas" should be formed and maintained, given the lack of a regular army or law enforcement mechanisms. These shortcomings, however, were relatively quickly corrected with the formal,legal creations of such institutions. However, Congress never went back and made a further amendment to the basic amendment. The reasons for this are quite easy to explain.
What you enjoy NOW as "the right to keep and bear arms" is simply a custom, one which is in fact based upon Constitutional law, but, is a priveledge conditioned by the premise that to disarm an armed public (which in days of yore depended upon their weapons for a variety of reasons and had become accustomed to being armed), was beyond the scope of the government to do peacefully.
Viewed in that light, the proscription of certain firearms and the attachment of qualifications, licences, etc, to the owning of a firearm, is simply pragmatic government. If the government WANTED to take your guns, it would certainly do so (assuming our military and law enfgorcement folks who would carry out such a program were mind-numbed robots incapable of doing anything but execute orders, or devoid of independant thought), and your ability to own a flame-thrower or an anti-tank rocket would not stop them. You can disabuse yourself of the fallacy that you might be called upon to fight a second revolution as some sort of Minuteman against a tyrannic state, because the power arrayed against you is incomprehensible and certainly invincible if it ever came down to that. Your only hope in that case, would be that certain segments of the state would see things yor way and come to your defense (those military and law enforcement officials who decided for one reason or another that their orders were either illegal or immoral. This, incidentally, is almost a certainty, in my opinion, should that event ever come to pass. These are NOT automatons, but thinking individuals who prize their liberty just as much as you do).
Any other excuse to own a weapon (I like to shoot cans, I like the noise, I can defend my home, I have an uncontrollable urge to shoot inoffensive forest creatures to prove my manhood, etc) are Utilitarian in nature, and certainly not irrelevant, but not necessarily a reason to conveniently ignore the first part of the Second Amendment, nor nullify the right of legally-constituted government to regulate the use and owenership of weapons.
"Give up the Rudy crap. Find someone at least 1.5% Conservative to put on the ballot already."
Ahmen.
It's as if they are running Rudy because he's the only "republican" who has any name recognition whose last name isn't Bush (e.g. Jeb).
The Republicans are forgetting how they got to Washington. Moving left will not keep them there.
Whoops! Forgot to finish the point;
When we refer to bullet point 12, it is axiomatic of the fringe right that the United States government is evil and the greatest threat to liberty (or rather, what those people perceive as liberty) the world will ever know. There are those who actively and persistently advocate armed revolution against the United States government, vigiliantism, and terrorism on the far right (the Black Helicopter Gang). What many see as government doing it's job as instructed by it's citizens (the regulating firearms) these folks see as losing their ultimate means by which their lunatic fantasies will one day be enacted (armed insurrection).
Hello! I happen to own four weapons myself. I'm certainly not anti-gun, but I do realize that it is necessary for reasons of civil peace for the government to regulate the use of firearms. The fact is that the very laws you regard as an infringement of your rights were constituted, debated and passed by democratically-elected legislatures. You can disagree with them, but you can't call them the illegal actions of a rampant govenrment.
I'm sorry if filling out an application,paying a fee, and dealing with the bureacracy is a great inconvenience for you, but the alternative is terrible to contemplate (there are certainly, you'll agree, way too many irresponsible people in the world, not as rational as us, to be trusted with guns, no?).
My views on history are certainly NOT in opposition to reality: I hold an MA in Western Civilization. What is your qualification to interpret history, I wonder?
"This is a pro-gun website, as stated by its founder. Perhaps you would be happier elsewhere?"
Ah, standard response; I can't argue with you, please leave. How sad.
>He improved your rabbit warren. That does not a statesman make.
If you'd like a statesman, vote for one. I want a President capable of leading, preferably one with a record of accomplishment commensurate with the demands of the job. As I previously indicated, if you have a superior candidate in mind, I am willing to consider alternatives. Just because you think I'm a rah-rah supporter doesn't make it so. My posts are mostly based on my desire to respond to distortions & outright untruths, not to mention wildly inappropriate cliches, lodged at this potential candidate, apparently without regard towards his record of accomplishment.
>In fact, most people would be hard-pressed to be as criminally inept as your average NYC government official, so saying he's better than Dinkins is surely damning him with faint praise.
Yeah, it's not like this town ever saw the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith, or Robert Moses...or that LaGuardia fella, either. Hey, it's not like Koch was any better than Jimmy Walker, now, was it.
>>"I guess mentioning the name of a candidate who represented the Conservative Party in NYC is means for another non-NYer to lodge the charge that us NYers are oh-so NY-centric."
>I should think that's obvious by now.
You're beginning to remind me of the poster who opined that any Northeasterner calling themselves a Conservative was in fact a quasi-Marxist, like, oh, you know, Buckley, hell, even Coulter. I don't know what it is with you folks, but I find this similar sort of attitude you're espousing to be rather unworthy of my time. I simply find it unfortunate that the opposition to this candidate is as willing as it is to overlook his record. Boo hoo.
>>"Sorry you think it's some piddling nonentity of a task."
>Yes, it was.
This is difficult to take seriously. Any criticism you could lodge at a NYer for being NY-centric, well, I trust you realize that your credibility is nil, if you're willing to put forth such foolishness. Clearly your understanding of exactly what was involved is sorely lacking.
The disregard for the guy's record of accomplishments makes more sense now. You folks are so consumed with hatred for the guy's positions, that you denigrate accomplishments you are proving you know nothing of.
>>"Who's asking you to? "
>As I recall, you were.
You recall incorrectly; go back & cite the relevant portions of my posts to support this claim, if you would.
In the case that you can prove me wrong, I will not have a problem admitting so. However, I have been consistent in maintaining that if this candidate is not conservative enough for folks on this site, by all means, look elsewhere. That I have an open mind & would be more than willing to consider other candidates. And that the anti-Rudy gang is misguided and juvenile, if not downright ignorant. I'm not asking you to vote for anyone, and I don't believe I have. I just think it's a shame that there are no apparent arguments against him that I've seen in these threads that have anything to do with presenting any valid reason to disqualify his candidacy based on his record, rather than the quote-mining done to prove how liberal he is.
The liberal who oversees a 65% reduction in the murder rate is a liberal I'm willing to consider voting for. For those of you to whom I'm not conservative enough on that basis, my apologies. I have seen firsthand the results of Giuliani's REPUBLICAN policies put into effect here & how dramatic & positive they were. And that's where my primary focus will lie in my 'unprincipled' approach towards determining who I feel is the more qualified candidate.
Amen! Well done!
>>"I want a President capable of leading, preferably one with a record of accomplishment commensurate with the demands of the job."
>Being mayor of a city isn't that.
Neither is being Governor of California or Texas, but it worked for Reagan & Bush. Oh, and once again I'm at risk of being viewed as NY-centric, but I think it's worth mentioning that this particular city is, uh, well, let's just say populated, and contains the financial capital of the entire country.
>You are backing up this attitude with evidence.... I find that amusing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636922/replies?c=722
>>"Clearly your understanding of exactly what was involved is sorely lacking. "
>I don't live in NYC. So sue me.
No lawsuit necessary, thank you very much. How about, is it too unreasonable to ask that you don't dismiss the accomplishment of turning this city around if you don't actually know much about what it actually involved? Especially if it's to the point of having to delve to the level of hyperbole necessary for the suggestion that it was a piddling achievement. I don't like the idea that the case would be overstated, either, but for those of us who lived here when Dinkins was mayor, not to mention the later Koch years, it's difficult to do that.
>>"You folks are so consumed with hatred for the guy's positions, that you denigrate accomplishments you are proving you know nothing of."
>Considering his positions are liberal ones, that would stand to reason, now wouldn't it?
Not if the record serves as a formidable balance to the positions that conservatives are opposed to. And this is not Clinton, 'effective politician,' that we're discussing, so I reject that comparison. Look, this doesn't have to be so difficult. What I say is, you don't make your case well with the continual insults, not when you're not taking accomplishments into consideration, nor offering any alternatives. Vote for Lyndon LaRouche, for all I care. But if you're going to get involved in this debate, a request for a tad of decorum & a pinch of reason & a grain of truth, rather than distortions, isn't too much to ask, is it?
Ho-hum:
"Oh, BTW, you are arguing *possession*, not *use*. The two are different things."
Possession predicates use. One does not encumber oneself with objects for which they have no utility. If you do, see a doctor. Just what use do you intend to put them to? Certainly, personal defense and sport are legitimate reasons to own a firearm (and these uses don't rquire things such as bayonet lugs or full-auto capability, do they?), or do you believe it is a good idea to just let anyone own and stockpile weapons just because "they want to"?
""The fact is that the very laws you regard as an infringement of your rights were constituted, debated and passed by democratically-elected legislatures."
They are still illegal."
Ah, so now laws enacted by constitutional means (whether at the state or federal level) are illegal? In that case, I choose to invalidate those Amendments to the constitution and all laws I personally find suspect (for example, I should have the right to walk up to you on the street and pummel you with a baseball bat because, well, the lasw regarding asault and battery were illegally passed, by your logic). Simply amazing! I'll bet you screamed like a stuck pig when the mayor of San Francisco abrogated those duly-enacted laws when he decided, all on his own, that he had the right and authority to marry gay couples, and about his disregard for the people's voice. Apparently, you have no issue with doing so of your own volition. Again, you keep proving my points about fascism for me.
"Why? It wasn't before when there was less regulation. Freedom isn't safe."
No, freedom is not a guarentee and it does require an engaged and active population to keep it that way, however, the conditions of the past bear no resemblance to the conditions of the present, in many aspects. As they say on Wall Street, "past performance is no guarentee of future returns." Perhaps in the past we had a more responsible, more civic-minded, or more genteel society, but we'll never know (besides, they had other things to shoot at them rather than each other; food, Indians, et. al.). I'm sure the government didn't keep crime/firearms records and statistics in 1789, or 1879, to the same extent that we do now, so we'll never really know if it was really any more peaceful then than it is now. My money says no, since human nature never changes. We'd like to believe differently, though.
"I'm not aware of a specific accredited field called "Western Civilization" (not history and not literature, but what - a survey degree?) nor do I take an MA as being indicative of anything. When you have at least an MS in a real field, we'll talk."
Western Civilization is the study of Western (defined as Western European, derived from and conditioned by the civilizations of Ancient Greece, Rome, the great European Empires, etc, and their offshoots, like the United States) history, culture, languages, arts and sciences, philosophy, religion, and politics. In short, it is the study of the traditions and institions which form the bedrock foundation of modern American and European politics, society and culture. As such, it is CERTAINLY a real field, and has been for several centuries.
Just answer the question... Am I still an American citizen in New York City???
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Were you born this smart & charming?
You want New York charm, you got it Mac...
Unfortunately for the rest of America, provided you are an American citizen in addition to being given to wild hyperbole to express some sort of anger issue, then yes.
Perhaps you could let me know what unconstituational zoning ordinances I can ignore in the name of being a one-issue Johnny on a message board when I come to your neck of the woods & purchase property to do all sorts of things the locals & local government would take grave exception to in the name of whatever laws they have enacted to restrict certain types of property development. Neighbors shouldn't mind if I decide to erect a few 100-story towers that will block their sunlight; after all, I imagine I'm still an American citizen if I'm still in America, and I should be able to do as I like with my own land. It's not like zoning laws should change from place to place, now, is it.
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.