The Conservative Case for Rudy Giuliani in 2008

Race 4 2008 ^ | August 31, 2006 | Dave G

[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...

[Peisistratus]

"Well I hope you are scared, you should be."

Not particularly, no. Just commenting on the way the liberal clique on this forum seems to operate.

You know, you aren't going to drum up support for your guy by trying to scare us with "President Hillary" while at the same time you're telling us to leave "your" party - as you did above....

BTW, what made the Republican Party yours? When did the Republican Party become owned by people who are against its platform? A Rudy candidacy would have all of the negatives the Bush candidacy had and *none* of the positives. What is there for us to vote *for*?

[defconw]

Well a case can be made for just who hijacked this party from whom. I am not a liberal, pal. I am a person who believes in most of the platform. Funny how the GOP had no problem allowing Rudy, Arnold, Pataki and others to speak to the Republican National Convention. They are part of our party and I would suggest that if you are so unhappy go elsewhere. I supported GWB, with eyes wide open. He's bashed for not being as conservative as Reagan, well he never said he was. I am fine with that.

[Peisistratus]

"Well a case can be made for just who hijacked this party from whom."

It just really burns you up that the conservatives started to take over the party in the 70s. You want "your" party back, don't you? You know, the party that didn't win. The party doomed to remain in the shadow of the Dems. The party of the Northeast liberals who didn't want to dirty themselves by actually being Democrats, but acted like them.

The party that Goldwater drove a stake into and Reagan hammered it home.

"I am a person who believes in most of the platform."

Rudy doesn't.

"Funny how the GOP had no problem allowing Rudy, Arnold, Pataki and others to speak to the Republican National Convention. "

The RNC (Republican National Committee) is not the Party, in the end. Pat Buchanan has spoken at the GOP Convention too...

"They are part of our party and I would suggest that if you are so unhappy go elsewhere"

If we do this, the Republicans lose and you'll only have your side to blame for it.

Rudy is pro-illegal, big-spending, pro-abortion, and pro-gun-control. There's nothing for a conservative to support there. At least the President has SOME conservative positions. Considering Rudy's personal opinions on the issues, I would have little confidence in any pledge to elect conservative judges, either. Basically, if Rudy loses in '08, the Democrats win. If Rudy wins in '08, the Democrats win. No sale.

[defconw]

'I see the pro-Rudy libs are calling in their reserves...."

I see the frightened 0ne Percenters have all arrived to shout down the discussion. You know what would be really something? If you guys could ever say anything positive about anybody. That would be amazing.

[Peisistratus]

"I see the frightened 0ne Percenters have all arrived to shout down the discussion."

So, we're "0ne Percenters" now? Is that 1% in that we refuse to vote for people who only have a conservative position on 1 in 100 issues, or something else?

"If you guys could ever say anything positive about anybody. That would be amazing."

This is not kindergarten, defconw. Back to the thread topic, there is no "conservative case for Rudy Guiliani". I'm sure he's a great guy, but he's no candidate a conservative could support for President. Why you people keep pushing him as the Second Coming, I can't fathom. You either try to scare us into supporting him or you tell us to get out of "your" party. Rockefeller would be proud, I suppose.

[defconw]

It does not burn me up, because in the 70's you old coot. I was more worried about Capitan Kangaroo, then the Republican Party. It does bother me however that in order to get judges on the bench that understand central things like the sanctity of life etc. that I have to associate myself with the likes of you.

You have no discernible clue where Rudy stands on anything regarding the platform, but you have formed your opinion and think if you scream long enough and threaten to hold your breath all of us will care enough about you to cave in. Adult persons can disagree about things with out having a stroke. Maybe I do disagree with him on some things, but I agree with him on others. You get all your thoughts second hand and you have no way to know what is in his heart. Now you will call me a lib again because I recognize the political reality of NYC politics. That's OK it doesn't bother me.

As for your threat to take your little band of merry men out of our party and we will lose. LOL, nothing could be further from the truth. Minorities would be more then happy to take your place.

You also constantly make the mistake of thinking that only your opinion counts. Don't like Rudy fine. Don't get on Rudy threads. Seems pretty simple. How about showing some courage. Pick a candidate and post a thread and let's see what nasty crap we can find on him?

One thing I know for sure, that the more your type of conservatism tries to block out all other types of thoughts, and your litmus tests persist. The younger GOP will be more inclined to seek new avenues. To take a phrase from back in the day, "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way". I know it's a "liberal" thing. LOL Pathetic really that we can't discuss a GOP candidate on this from, without the haters.

[Wombat101]

Be fair. The term "One Percenters" is not entirely accurate. What they are is "Wrap-around Conservatives". They have moved so far to the right in their extremism that they are in danger of becoming leftists and don't even realize it. They certainly sound like them and act like them.

P.S. they are allergic to actual debate and reason, which they avoid like the measles, shout you down and then end with a florurish of "you;re busted" or "you've been outed, Lefty", pat themselves on the back for having defended freedom and go back to surfing kiddie porn or whatever it is they do when they're not in church or posting crap here.

And as for P, I guess when I come around to his house, heave a brick through his window, p*ss on his front lawn, club him to death with a golf club, violate his wife and burn his house down (just after I kick his dog in the nuts),I can simply walk into the courthouse and explain my actions away with his patented "Because I want to" defense of personal justification, assert that all those silly laws passed by constitutional process don't apply to me, and leave a free man (not that I would do it, but you get the idea).

[defconw]

ROFLMAO! Great post. I sooooooooo hear you! When you get to that house, ping me, I wnat to be in on it. Gladly.

[Peisistratus]

"It does bother me however that in order to get judges on the bench that understand central things like the sanctity of life etc. that I have to associate myself with the likes of you."

You won't get that with Rudy. He doesn't agree with you at all, by his own statements.

"You have no discernible clue where Rudy stands on anything regarding the platform"

Of course I do. We have his record as evidence.

"You get all your thoughts second hand and you have no way to know what is in his heart"

Neither do you.

"ow you will call me a lib again because I recognize the political reality of NYC politics. "

NYC politics has nothing to do with national politics. What may pass for "conservative" in the rabbit warren, isn't out in the real world.

"You also constantly make the mistake of thinking that only your opinion counts."

On the contrary. I'm not in the least bit alone in my opinion of a Rudy candidacy.

"One thing I know for sure, that the more your type of conservatism tries to block out all other types of thoughts, and your litmus tests persist. The younger GOP will be more inclined to seek new avenues."

My "litmus test" revolves around conservative principles. Of course, you disdain those. Your "younger GOP" is, in fact, the old Northeast GOP in jeans. Vote how you will. I'll do likewise. Know this, though: I will not vote for a liberal regardless of party affiliation.

[Peisistratus]

""Because I want to" defense of personal justification, assert that all those silly laws passed by constitutional process don't apply to me, and leave a free man (not that I would do it, but you get the idea)."

You have totally missed my point... In fact, your post was disgusting.

[Wombat101]

Ah,so you hate it when your own words come back to haunt you, don't you?

Perhaps if you found that disgusting, you can imagine how disgusting I found your selfish notion that you have the the right to do whatever the hell you want when you want to, the rest of us be damned. You opened that rhetorical door, pal, don't b*tch because I made you walk through it.

[Smokin' Joe]

They actually expect to garner support for their Leader by insulting and sneering at conservatives?

It fits, though. They keep doing the same thing over and over and somehow expect different results. (One definition of stupid, imho).

What worked in New York might well bring open revolt in the hinterlands. Lest Republicans forget, the "Assault Weapons Ban" brought the Democrats down and put the Republicans into power, pehaps more than any other single issue. Abortion was a definite contributing issue as well. "Gay Marriage" was not even on the radar.

Alienate the base on these issues and they will sit it out, vote third party, or only grudgingly vote "Republican".

The big reason the Republicans 'scored' was that there was a clear, conservative difference between them and the liberal Democrats. If the Republicans run a liberal, they lose the difference, and frankly, with the some of the crap the Congress has pulled, as well as what they have not done, that distinction is fading and tattered badly enough already.

Of course, the MSM will tout these liberals (Rudy, Mc Cain) as the "moderate" front-runners. It is only to their party's advantage to ballyhoo from the rooftops that these losers are the hot new Republican candidate pool.

Rudy did great for New York, at least New Yorkers were satisfied. Fine. But that is only one small part of America, despite the egocentrism of its inhabitants, and what is 'right' for them just does not fit elsewhere. Consider New York lost more policemen on 9/11 than many flyover counties have, (state, local and sherrif's deputies), and you begin to get an inkling of the differences, and why the RKBA is a lynchpin issue.

[Peisistratus]

"Ah,so you hate it when your own words come back to haunt you, don't you? "

What words of those were mine?

"Perhaps if you found that disgusting, you can imagine how disgusting I found your selfish notion that you have the the right to do whatever the hell you want when you want to, the rest of us be damned. You opened that rhetorical door, pal, don't b*tch because I made you walk through it."

This is what I meant by your missing my point. You conflate possession with use. To you, possession of a gun makes one a murderer, possession of a car that can exceed the speed limit makes one a speeder, and possession of a vagina makes a woman a prostitute.

I'm sure you have a car that can exceed the speed limit. Judging by your attitude issues, I'd bet it's a Beemer.... What gives you the right to own a fast car? Because you WANT it. In a free country, you owe the rest of society no more reason then that. It is the USE of such an instrument that can be proscribed, as that affects the rights of others.

The part I found *disgusting* was your statement about what you think conservatives do when they aren't posting here.

[defconw]

I feel fairly safe in saying that Rudy wouldn't want your vote, not if it means he has to become some kind of mind numbed automaton that has to parrot conservative talking points in order to get your vote. Rudy is flesh and blood. A real human being. A good man, and a strong leader. He has a brain and he knows how to use it.

One thing is for certain, he's been out in the arena and has the wounds to show it. Some bomb thrower on Free Republic can't take that from him. Rudy is a patriot and I would be proud if he were my President. At least I would be able to know that if some Islamo-facist tried to blow me up, he would do everything in his power to prevent it.

[Peisistratus]

"I feel fairly safe in saying that Rudy wouldn't want your vote, not if it means he has to become some kind of mind numbed automaton that has to parrot conservative talking points in order to get your vote."

If he's not a conservative in fact, I'd rather him not parrot things he doesn't believe in. If Rudy wins the nomination, he'll lose the Presidency.

"A good man, and a strong leader. He has a brain and he knows how to use it."

None of this is proven to the country at large.

"At least I would be able to know that if some Islamo-facist tried to blow me up, he would do everything in his power to prevent it."

He made NYC a sanctuary city before a bunch of visa-violators attacked the WTC....

[Dante3]

Rudy just has too much baggage that his opponent can use against him. Remember how the MSM went after Bush for just an ancient DUI? Besides, Hillary might win the Demo. nomination, and so far Rudy appears scared to face her even for the NY Senate seat - makes me wonder if she has something devastating on him.

[Peisistratus]

"Rudy just has too much baggage that his opponent can use against him."

They'll push him as the best thing since sliced bread up until he wins the nomination, then turn on him. That way, they win. Even if he was elected, they win.

"Besides, Hillary might win the Demo. nomination, and so far Rudy appears scared to face her even for the NY Senate seat - makes me wonder if she has something devastating on him."

Who knows what the FBI files contained.

[defconw]

Oh please. I have to go to a DeWine Fundraiser. See you later. You are so delusional.

[Peisistratus]

"You are so delusional."

Right back at ya.

[Wombat101]

Ah yes, the old "don't alienate the base" shtick.

Process this: if the GOP manged to front a candidate that appealed to the decisive "swing voters" in greater numbers, the "base" won't mean diddly squat. At this point, "the base" (funny, but isn't that what Al' Qaeda translates to in Arabic?) only counts because it a) has the money and b) controls the majority of super-delegates in most state primaries.

That's why their so instrumental in getting a candidate over the hump, but their pet peeves get so woefully ignored after the election is over, making them bitter and vengeful.

Pragmatism is a word that is simply not in their vocabulary. The concept litterally ties them up in mental knots. The sad fact is that at this point in time, the GOP must be more pragmatic and less beholden to narrower interests. Pushing the pro-life agenda, the Second Amendment crusade and a host of other issues simply will not garner votes for the GOP when the country has bigger fish to fry (like 150,000 Americans in Iraq for the foreseeable future, Islamofascism, growing trade deficits with our next enemy (China), an economy which hums but in which the vast majority of the money and opportunity is not finding it's way to the people who created it (the Middle Class), and illegal immigration). We're up against a new set of priorities here. In that light, it behooves the party to take a look at candidates from all over the republican spectrum. That includes Giuliani.

So, fine. Take your ball and go home. Walk away from the republican party and see if you ever, ever have any influence on American politics again (which is when all them guns the Fed'ral Gub'mint and Rudy G grabbed from you would have come in handy, right?)