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 ...
Pro-choice gun-grabber who hounds like Clinton.
No problem here. I like Rudy.
You know this? Nobody has announced candidacy...
Well, you can tell if candidates are running if they are raising money, visiting primary states, and building support and friendships with other members of their party.
Despite what pomo leftists like to believe, words aren't always the reality. Look at actions, not the rhetoric. I'd say McCain and Romney are definitely running, and it is more likely than not Rudy will run.
Pragmatism? You want pragmatic? How about this? If I realize that there is no difference between those who would strip us of our Constitutional (and God-given) rights, continue the slaughter of the unborn, and promote the misnamed "Gay" lifestyle (a continuation of the moral turpitude which is even now being imposed on young children in the classroom), when they are only differentiated by a letter or party affiliation? You would trust such to wage war?
When Clinton ran we said "It is all about character, character counts!"
Now, for the sake of electing someone people in liberal hotbed of NEW YORK are promoting, through our wonderful friends and speaking organs of the LIBERAL masses, the Drive-by Media, are we to abandon the requirement that the Republican candidate have the essentials of character we formerly required?
If so, then the question is moot. The abandonment of the principles of conservatism just means we will have two liberal parties, with no more meaningful difference than two sports teams, which would fit in just fine with the pep-rally mentality demonstrated by some at late.
"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..."
It may not garner more votes for the GOP, but the point is, which eludes you save to call everyone who does not sell out a cop-out, is that the failure to adequately address these traditional and conservative stances will COST the GOP votes, even when there is no viable alternative. Wrap your head around that concept just once, because it makes the likes of Rudy and McCain unelectable, even"... 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)."
Funny you should bring up class warfare...
"We're up against a new set of priorities here. "
NO, we are not. The sanctity of life, the Constitution itself, are not disposable nor bargaining chips to be callously be tossed aside. We gain nothing by abandoning principle, save to become that which we oppose.
As for those of you who would sell your souls for salvation, you can hang whatever name on yourselves you want, as long as it is not "conservative". If you can't stand on principle, you are nothing more than a sellout.
"In that light, it behooves the party to take a look at candidates from all over the republican spectrum. That includes Giuliani."
Okay, I looked. Thankyouverymuch. Next!
Never been hunting, I take it.
"Don Rumsfeld..."
That's a candidacy I could get behind, but I doubt he'd run due to his age.
"Never been hunting, I take it."
The yearly Knob Creek shoot would give him a stroke.... ;)
I haven't read the thread, but treachery doesn't go down too well, especially with conservatives.
"Never been hunting, I take it."
Oh, was a once a very avid hunter. Deer, elk and wild turkey were my thing. Ultimately, got tired of the whole routine. I'd rather shoot skeet on most days anyways (although I haven't in some months, since I've been busy).
For Joe:
You came late to the debate, and I'm going to assume that you haven't read the commentary between P and myself from beginning to end, because this is the third time you've responded to something in a way that was contrary to what was posted.
For P:
As for your slander comment, it's only slander if you believe two things;
a. That there is such a thing as a conservative anymore.
b. You are blind, deaf and dumb.
There are no more consevatives anymore. If you doubt this, then I direct your attention to the activities of the US COngress over the last six years. It has violated every conservative principle there ever was. There has been no fiscal responsibility, no reform of entitlement programs, no attempt to limit the scope of government, no attempt to shrink government, and the biggst assault of free speech in American history. As for GWB, despite my love for the man, it becomes ever more clear to me the only reason he's stillpresident is because he once said, with a straight face, that Jesus was his favorite political phiosopher, and because the alternatives offered were even less qualified, and certainly more dangerous. There are no conservatives in Washington, to be sure. Have achieved it's greatest victory (ownership of the White House and both houses of Congress), Conservatism was quickly thrown overboard in the rush to divide the political spoils.
On a host of issues, that Conservative majority in Washington routinely caves to special interests (who were supposed to have been purged from politics by McCain's CFR), on subjects like immigration. It fails to use it's hard-won privleges to get it's agenda through (see "Nuclear option", Social Security Reform). It's "leadership" has spent more time primping, preening and positioning itself for futire presidential races than it has on the people's buisness. It's leadership consists of a lunatic (McCain), a tackling fummy (Bill Frist) and a ham-handed-in-public-timid-in-private mediocrity (Dennis Hastert), none of whom has managed in the last six years to achieve anything approaching a practical victory on any conservative issue of value.
There is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the Holy Grail of the conservative movement for the last 30 years. It was achieved after a very messy public battle, and with the promise that conservative values would be upheld and re-established. There has, to this date, no such thing.
Having achieved their second greatest victory, conservatism failed to do anything with it.
There is no longer a conservative press in this country anymore, either. When such former stalwarts as Geroge Will, William F. Buckley, Francis Fukuyama, and the Wall Street Journal can all first make the case for war and then, when it becomes unpopular, quickly switch positions and act as if they weren't, in part, responsible for that it, it disgusts me. It's a pity when Christopher Hitchens sounds more conservative than George Will. It's a shame when Pat Buchannan can publish so obviously an anti-conservative screed where he fairly screams for the United States to abandon Israel in order to avoid the "wrath" of the Arabs. Pat may be spot on on immigration, but even a blind hog finds an acorn once in awhile. The only ones left are Ann Coulter, who enjoys her role as the anti-Maureen Dowd too much, and Mark Steyn, who, unfortunately, can only type so much in any given week.
There is no conservative media anymore with anything approaching respectability, unless you consider Sean Hannity a towering intellect. If you do, seek help.
As for the rank and file, while there may be a relative few who are thoughtful folks, the majority of what calls itself conservative are little more than small clusters of one-issue voters, fringe lunatics, religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots running around who resemble the Blackshirts of every totalitarian movement you could ever think of, and yet they have the audacity to claim that they act so under the cover of exercising Constitutional rights and that THEY are the guardians of the Constitution. These people are militant, they are mentally-stunted, they are poisonous, and they don't belong in MY REPUBLICAN party.
So, considering that there are no more conservatives, P, there is no one to slander.
"As for your slander comment, it's only slander if you believe two things; "
To be accurate, it was libel - and the libel was what you believe conservatives do in their spare time when not posting here.
"So, considering that there are no more conservatives, P, there is no one to slander."
Oh, there are conservatives. You just aren't one of them.
"Oh, there are conservatives. You just aren't one of them."
Never claimed to be one. And neither are you. For you the label "Conservative" is merely an appelation and an affectation.
I am not sure what debate you are talking about, because I was responding to your responses to me. If you find that contrary, it may be because I take issue with things you post.
Do not so casually dismiss me.
I am one of the "Conservatives which do not exist". Maybe not inside the beltway, but out here in the hinterlands, when you get more than 100 miles from the coast, there are plenty.
We are far from extinct, and while not a political majority, even among those who consider themselves "conservative" because they are an angstrom unit to the right of Hillary on the political spectrum, we are a still a significant factor.
I know you for what you are. You are one of the masses of pseudoconservative liberals who are busy trying to morph the party into a watered down version of the other party. One of those who stands for standing for nothing.
You think that will defeat Islam? No. It will pave the way to dhimmitude and do the roadwork.
We confront an enemy in the WOT who believes they have the only answer. Anything less than that depth of conviction, any waffling, any pandering, any 'negotiation' will result in a loss.
We believe the willful abandonment of a vow so fundamental as that taken in marriage speaks volumes about a person's character. While we do not expect perfection, we hold our leaders to a higher standard instead of using some assumption of quasi-royalty to excuse actions we would not excuse among ourselves. We have a visceral disgust for the double standard that demands more from the rank and file than their leaders, and that fundamental dislike is part of what makes us conservatives.
At the same time, we also have an inconvenient document called a Constitution. Often ignored, commonly twisted, thoroughly soiled, badly battered, it still exists.
There are those of us who believe the founders were far wiser and in many ways far more moral than those who would pitch principle to the wind to 'win' an election, despite the alleged failings of the founders.
You state: "As for the rank and file, while there may be a relative few who are thoughtful folks, the majority of what calls itself conservative are little more than small clusters of one-issue voters, fringe lunatics, religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots running around who resemble the Blackshirts of every totalitarian movement you could ever think of, and yet they have the audacity to claim that they act so under the cover of exercising Constitutional rights and that THEY are the guardians of the Constitution. These people are militant, they are mentally-stunted, they are poisonous, and they don't belong in MY REPUBLICAN party."
If this is your attitude, you do not belong in our Republican Party.
Ultimately, we are the guardians of the Constitution, each and every one of us, for power is derived from the people by their consent.
You say we "resemble the blackshirts of every totalitarian movement", what a classic liberal twist!
Who is trying to take Constitutional rights from whom?
What a classic liberal ploy to call those who stand for their beliefs in opposition to yours "mentally stunted", to equate resolve with stupidity.
To call those of us who believe murdering 45,000,000 babies in the womb morally wrong "poisonous".
Or is it those who believe it should not be a felony to own a tin box capable of feeding your rifle more than an arbitrary number of cartridges?
Perhaps you refer to those whose ancestors came to this country to worship God freely, only to see Him systematically removed from our culture and public places, to satiate the braying of a small minority who claim to not worship a God at all.
As for one issue voters, yes, there are a few, but most of us 'flyover country' conservatives have more than one issue we regard as critically important, any one of which is enough to render a candidate unsuitable. Perhaps you find that imponderable, but spare us your vitriolic and sanctimonious screed for your failings.
Fortunately, Rudy can 'not appeal' to those who would discard a candidate who they deem unsuitable on more than one issue as well. He has the ability to 'not appeal' to a broad spectrum of one-issue voters, which I presume to some means he is a real winner. Most of those who think that constitutes the 'winning formula' do not claim title to the Republican Party, though.
There are quite a number of us who view the beltway circus with the disgust it has thoroughly earned in the past 50 years, and especially in the last decade. We believe, still, that that can be straightened out, but that it will take time and an unwavering resolve to keep the helm to starboard. That will not happen overnight, but an abandonment of principle will only ensure that it does not happen at all.
Don't get me wrong, we'll need you knee-jerk party-line box checkers come the general election, while we replace the tainted members of the majority with conservatives in the primaries. It'll happen.
It'll happen because, like many others, I want better for my great-grandchildren, as do my grandchildren. They want the reality of opportunity which was the 'American Dream', not the ersatz which is no more than serfdom to the State.
Besides, "fringe lunatics, religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots" pretty much sums up the Europeans who colonized this continent in the first place, distinct from the current crop of fringe lunatics, anti-religious zealots, malcontents and vicious little idiots who would bring this country down.
Bush proved to not be the conservate we hoped for but he is better than the alternatives offered. Rudy would be no worse than Bush. I do believe he would be strong on homeland security and would appoint strict constuctivists judges. Who is a better Dem choice? Rudy would be a factor in the blue states. PA for example, is not that blue. He could take PA and maybe even NY. That would kill any hope the Demorats have for the presidency. Think about it!
Religious and social conservatives constitute a majority of the GOP`s hardcore primary activists. I don't see that majority voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion, pro-PBA, pro-gun control and an advocate for special rights for homos and illegals.
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.