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 ...
Oh, this is starting to sound like the "blame America first" talking points.
YES, we need to stop illegals. BUT we should put the blame for 911 where it's due. Islamicfascists.
We already have the dangerous democrat party. Let's not become like them. Let's not hate the democrats more than we hate the terrorists. Let's not hate democrats more than we love America. We have seen the democrat party lose because of that.
My question is who is that republican candidate who will not only represent our domestic beliefs but also fight and win the war against Islamicfascists and take down Iran and North Korea? Who is he?
I'm no fan of Giuliani but I am definately going to look at all of him (or her depending on the day)but Im all ears. Who is that President so I can also stand behind him?
Personally, I think this present White House is much too pc in this war and I want a warrior as President. I want somebody who will take no prisoners, who will not cave and give terrorists POW status and someone who will not charge our brave soldiers for murder when they engage the enemy.
Who is that republican who can win the general election?
No matter who gets elected, the LIBERALS win.
Save the energy. She has no intentions of running anyway.
"Who is that republican who can win the general election?"
Back to the original point, finally, but let's re-word the question, as this seems to have formed the basis of the current debate.
The final candidate will be one that manages to somehow balance three,often-conflicting requirements, the best. Those requirements will be:
1. Perceived ability to abide by the requirements and necessities of the job which are dictated and conditioned by the fact that we live in a republic, and not a democracy (as some here seem to believe). There are rules,right down the line, and whoever can (or gives the impression that he/she can) follow them, scores the first point.
2. Demonstrates an ability to navigate the rocks and shoals of the wide array of opinion, and often, stupidity, thrown up by the disparate constituencies that make up this party. He/she will have to strike a balance between the federalists, the gun righters, the self-righteous religious, the big-money interests, the political theorists, and the great, unwashed masses who follow and/or understand politics at a generally shallow level, and attach themselves because they simply like the appelation "republican". The trick is to avoid offending enough of them to keep them at home or voting for another candidate by selectively and strategically kow-towing to particular groups. If he/she can do this, they score the second point.
3. He/she has enough appeal to reach the "independant" vote (more likely characterized as the "What are you going to bribe me with?" or the "I'm really a retard, but can be swayed by someone who looks "nice"", or the, "Gee, he/she has really good taste in shoes!") vote. This represents about 20-25% of the electorate. This is the part of the electorate which is "turned off" by politics. Unfortunately, they are not as "turned off" as they are disinterested, or waiting for some sort of handout (for democrats: increased social spending, for republicans: tax cuts). Whoever can prove (by way of polling data and a number of other ridiculous machinations) more acceptable to the (ironically!) least-interested segment of the population, scores the third point.
So, the question really is:
What republican can manage to mollify enough of the "base" (i.e. hardcore politcal junkies, traditional voters (i.e. I vote republican because Daddy did), or people with a specific axe to grind)), be packaged as a "really swell guy" to those who don't really care or, don't have the same level of intelligence God gave to an Irish Setter, and still manage to avoid the ideological and rhetorical landmines within his own party?
If you can answer that, you have your candidate.
Personally, I like Newt. It's simply a bonus that he can think and act without the need to get permission from "the base".
Which would make some here very happy, I'll wager.
It is sure beginning to look that way. This place seems to be getting lousy with Rudy shills.
"The only legitimate reason that ought to matter is that I want them. Nothing more is due you. In fact, "full-auto" is legal and I dare you to find any 7/11 that was ever robbed at bayonet point... Statist.'
No,but I can show you several thousand American citizens (many of them innocent bystanders) mowed down by AK-47's and variants of such, Mac-9's, automatic shotguns, and a littany of weapons that wouldn't be found in your home for self-defense or in the field to hunt deer.
"Because I want to" is not a valid reason. You live in a society, and that society passes laws in it's own interests. You may disagree with them (as is your right), but you do accept the methods and machinations by which this happens (or, as we rational people like to call it, the Constitutional process). You like it when it works for you, you should accept it when it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you will and will not obey. If you don't like them, you have a remedy: it's called a vote. "Because I want to" is not a legitimate reason to do anything that has the potential to affect your fellow citizens adversely. If you wish to live someplace where that assertion holds any weight, move to Afghanistan.
"If they violate said Constitution, you bet your sweet bippy."
Which is why we have Supreme Courts, Appeals Courts, Appellate courts, Circuit Courts and a littany of legal procedures and manuevers available to us; to ensure that laws passed DO meet Constitutional muster. The matter of gun control has been, and will continue to be, debated in these forums, and up to this point, such methods have been deemed Constitutional. Quod erat demonstrandum. Don't play the game in which you can argue, contra-factum, that which has already been done. Just because you don't like the conclusion it doesn't follow that the process by which it was determined was irrelevant because you say so.
"Just as I thought. A survey degree."
Hardly! If you think so, you spend 10 years getting your Master's degree and then you tell me. Oh, and I did it while holding down a full-time job and supporting my disabled mother, brother and sister, too.
Actually, I had to acquire two seperate BA's before I was even allowed to continue on to a masters in Western Civ (European History, Political Science - University of Connecticut. My master's, Western Civ, is from Stanford University, via correspondance, no less!), I had to master Latin and Attic Greek (God forbid you read Plato and Strabo in English translation!), take innumerable courses in Economics, comparative history, religious studies, attempt to stay awake during philosophy classes, and spend years writing a thesis on the reasons why the American Civil War was a natural (and predictable) outgrowth of the American Revolution. And all that while holding down a real job. And by the way, no government program paid for my education: I did.
What's your degree in? Bovine Scattological Matter Management? Must be because you're quite good at throwing bulls*hit.
As for what restaurant I work in;
I own my own business, thank you. I am a System's Automation consultant (I basically program large computer systems that put people like you out of work), and that was AFTER spending 1985-2003 on Wall Street (Smith-Barney), building automated trading systems (you know, computers that buy and sell stocks without any human intervention at all?). Amazing, since I never spent a day in a comp sci class and started out as a computer operator-- back when people actually DID operate computers and not the other way around. Last year, I netted more than $1.5 million, after taxes, and worked probably 7 months out of the year.
I guess you just don't see that kind of money at the gas station, do you?
Now see, that's how one REALLY uses condescension! Having the wherewithal to back it up!
"I'm sure I can show you that those "automatic" weapons were purchased illegally. You see, gun laws only affect the law abiding. None of my firearms were purchased for "self-defense" or to "hunt deer"."
I never said they were legally purchased. All I said was that, for the good of society, government was empowered by the citzens to restrict the sale of such weapons. Whether or not government ENFORCED those laws is a different story altogether, and has nothing to do with the question of whether government has the right to restirct firearms ownership (it does).
""Because I want to" is not a valid reason."
You post this and had the gall to call me fascist?"
Yep. Most certainly. You believe the law doesn't apply to you, and that it is your personal duty and right to disobey it if it suits your purposes or needs. The first action of a fascist is to justify behavior that is contrary to the laws of society (written and unwritten) and call it a virtue.
"10 years for a Masters? You've got to be kidding? Most Masters programs kick people out after 5."
I wasn't a full-time student (see above); I worked for a living while I was studying. Mommy and Daddy couldn't afford to send me to college (like many people), I had to go out and do it for myself. So it took me longer to get my degrees, so what? Are they not valid because I did it over a period of a decade rather than in one fell swoop? What kind of an assinine argument is that? Would you not use a doctor simply because he spent a decade learing his craft?
"Most unimpressed. You're a glorified paper-pusher if even that much. CS people are bad enough sometimes, but "automation consultants"? HA!"
By that standard, then I can call you a "Hopped-up, slide-rule jockey" or "caluclator operator". What an automation consultant does, is show a corporation how to save time, effort and money (i.e. achieve greater efficiency) through the use of automated processes and systems. On occasion, this means I do the actual coding myself, in others that the company uses it's own resources. As an engineer, you should appreciate the concept of efficiency in any system, no? Why that should bring ridicule is puzzling.
Unless, of course, you're just jealous.
In any case, I now know that your real issue is a severe inferiority complex, a confused mental state, a sense of entitlement that goes way beyond narcissism (probably one of those bad potty-training victims), and a complete inablility to see anything beyond your own nose.
How sad it must be to be you.
OK that's just stupid. Rudy already ran a city larger then a lot of states. Hillary has never ran anything. She needs the credentials, he doesn't. You really don't understand politics very much do you?
Any time. I got your back. Check your mail.
They are just as bad as the liberals. If I agree with someone 90 percent of the time it's not enough, I must be a liberal. Well that's not true. What I am is a pragmatist and a very partisan Republican, who as a young person took the late great Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment to heart. "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican". Therefore I will not curse these alleged Republicans, but if we all have to agree 100 percent of the time we will become the Democrat Party.
Of couse they will claim that they are conservatives first, not Repubicans to which I will say then kindly butt out of our party and start your own.
Hey 145, SFD's home page is very interesting and he lives in Oregon not New York, not that one couid not move I guess. But I just thought I'd mention it.
I like Newt, but he's so micro management oriented, that I doubt his ability to be President. Plus I am still sore at him for bailing on us the first time.
Well I hope you are scared, you should be.
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.