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...

[defconw]

I am glad you liked the picture. I thought it was great.

[George W. Bush]

So now you're on Cheney's case too!

I just didn't see why the picture was considered appealing. In terms of composition, it's poorly framed. Neither man is shown in a very appealing way.

If you were a NYer you would know better.

Pardon me for being an inferior being to those elevated denizens native to that cesspool known as New York City.

[defconw]

Now New York is cesspool? Nice.

[Chunga]

What if the Republican running agrees in nearly all respects with the Democrats?

"What ifs" are for children and liberals.

[Wombat101]

It's come to the point, defcon, where it's best to just ignore the idiocy.

To begin with, we have a seriously unbalanced individual (P) who insists that he should have the right to own a flame thrower, just because he wants to, with the disingenuous caveat of "but that doesn't mean I'd ever use it". He defends this lunacy by pointing to the constitution (2nd Amendment) and ignores the fact that firearms regulations were enacted by legally constituted legislatures, with the consent of the governed, (which sounds an awful lot like constitutional-Republican democracy to me!). He feels that laws that he does not agree with can be disobeyed according to his whims. He then follows up by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from a mental disorder stemming from their irrational fear of weapons (he calls it hoplophobia. I'll check the DSM IV at my leisure to see if this really exists).

As for ReaganMan, a poll taken RIGHT HERE of other "conservatives" can be safely pooh-poohed because "it doesn't mean anything two years out". Yet, two years out, he rails against the possibility of Rudy getting any sort of consideration. On the one hand, speculation (i.e. a poll) means nothing, and on the other (speculation about a candidacy) means everything. Hypocracy, apparently, is something other people engage in. His real problem is that someone had the audacity to put "Guiliani" and "Conservative" in the same sentence, without grasping the context in which it was done.

As to whoever said I was "on a roll until the last two paragraphs", I merely speak the truth. If you can disprove the fact that this is the republican, not conservative, party, please do so. If you can prove that a small,lunatic fringe, is the core of this party, then please do so. If you can show a Congressional victory in the last six years that bolstered a conservative point of view or premise (and a pure one, at that; "Compassionate Conservatism" is a slogan, not a political movement), then please do so. From where I sit, the highlights of the conservative movement in the last six years seem to be limited to two nominations on a Supreme Court which has not done a thing since, the bigegst restrictions on political speech in American history, and passing a resolution in the middle of the night which ultimately failed to save a poor woman from having her feeding tube removed.

Show me a victory in the last six years that has seriously entrenched and advanced any conservative value which will not be reversed by any future democratic administration, and I'll be more than happy to agree with you that, perhaps, conservatism is not dead. However, it looks pretty much like it got buried right along with the Gipper (Requiesat in Pacem).

[Peisistratus]

""What ifs" are for children and liberals."

What an idiotic reply, but fine - allow me to rephrase the question.

Would you vote for a Republican that follows the Democrat party platform?

[Peisistratus]

"To begin with, we have a seriously unbalanced individual (P)"

As I recall, it is customary to ping those you talk about.
BTW, flamethrowers are legal. What I see in you is a petty little tyrant who wants to be the Decider for what others may possess.

"and ignores the fact that firearms regulations were enacted by legally constituted legislatures, with the consent of the governed,"

I take it you would support a ban on political speech if enacted by a "legally constituted legislature"?

[Peisistratus]

"Now New York is cesspool? Nice."

I prefer rabbit warren, or asylum, myself....

[Chunga]

You're a moron. Get a life.

[Peisistratus]

"You're a moron. Get a life."

I see we've reached your intellectual limit.

It's all about the name "Republican" with you people. It doesn't matter one bit what they stand for. If Howard Dean and George Bush switched parties, you'd vote for Dean in a heartbeat and rail against Bush.... It would be amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.

[Chunga]

I see we've reached your intellectual limit.

All you'd done until your most recent post is ask ridiculous questions. You either don't understand or you conveniently ignore party politics, which for a conservative involves keeping as many Democrats out of power as possible.

If you don't understand why keeping Democrats out of power is a good idea, you're far too stupid to hold your own in a conversation about the criminality of the Democratic Party, the uselessness of third parties as anything other than spoiling mechanisms, the need to control committee chairmanships, judicial appointments, prosecuting wars and fighting terrorism.

You anti-Republican conservatives are a dime a dozen. Every last one of your posts are trite, predictable, tedious, wrongheaded and boring. I repeat: Get a life.

[Peisistratus]

"All you'd done until your most recent post is ask ridiculous questions. "

It's not a ridiculous question at all.

What do you support, a platform or a name?

"conservative involves keeping as many Democrats out of power as possible."

NO! For a conservative, it involves keeping as many LIBERALS out of power as possible.

"You anti-Republican conservatives are a dime a dozen"

You know, if this is true, liberal Republicans are really in trouble....

"Every last one of your posts are trite, predictable, tedious, wrongheaded and boring."

The truth really bothers you, doesn't it?

[JohnD9207]

Can we say that about McCain? As for his liberal social positions, while you are holding your nose in the voting booth, ask yourself if you would rather have Rudi or ANY Democrat?

---

With respect, I think there are more options than Rudi. I admit that someone has to step up and announce their intentions, however its too soon in the process to say Rudi is the ONLY republican option. While Rudi might beat Hillary what are we conservatives getting? A pro gun control, moderate who isn't opposed to illegals or abortion. He would be against any more social welfare reform, and would side with the rats on more issues than any serious poster here could tolerate. As a national party, can we do better than Rudi? The one lasting effect of the Bush administration will be his supreme court choices, which will be damaged by the confirmation of moderate jurists that Rudi will choose.

Yes Hillary is a dangerous choice for president, however Rudi would only be a slight improvement, and this Conservative demands better from the RNC.

[Chunga]

NO! For a conservative, it involves keeping as many LIBERALS out of power as possible.

Incorrect. If there are no conservative candidates, I want RINOs to beat Democrats in liberal states. If you're a conservative, so do you.

If you're not voting against Democrats, you're not a conservative. The way to vote against the most liberals having the most power is to vote Republican.

Take your medicine and grow the hell up.

[Peisistratus]

"Incorrect."

So, it is all about the party for you.

"If you're a conservative, so do you."

If the Republican and Democrat are on the same side, they aren't on mine. Only a fool or a party hack would vote for either one at that point.

"If you're not voting against Democrats, you're not a conservative."

If you aren't voting against liberals, you aren't a conservative.

"The way to vote against the most liberals having the most power is to vote Republican."

Absolutely not.

"Take your medicine and grow the hell up."

My "medicine" has been seeing what the Republicans have done with what we've given them.

[Chunga]

You're a clueless anti-Republican political neophyte. Unless you vote Republican, the only political clout you have lies in enabling the Democratic Party.

They love anti-Republican posts over at Democratic Underground...check it out when you have time.

[Peisistratus]

"You're a clueless anti-Republican political neophyte."

Political neophyte? Party-line voters tend to be that. Issue voters are not. You see, there is supposed to be a point to voting.

"Unless you vote Republican, the only political clout you have lies in enabling the Democratic Party."

If the particular Republican in question is no different than the Democrats, it doesn't make one bit of difference. I vote the candidate, not the party. So far, that's meant Republicans. If the RNC continues in the direction its going, I may not in the future. I wouldn't vote for Rudy.

You can NEVER tell a politician he'll have your vote no matter what. Unless you are a major donor, that is ALL the leverage you have over him. He is not ENTITLED to your vote by his mere existence, or shouldn't be if you were a thoughtful voter.

"check it out when you have time."

You seem oddly familiar with a Dem website. I wonder why that is?

[Democratshavenobrains]

At least nobody is seriously considering George Allen anymore. Talk about your empty suits.

[Peisistratus]

Something to cause you no end of heartburn....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1695833/posts?page=1#1

How dare these people have these things! Wombat101 doesn't approve. The nerve!

[George W. Bush]

To begin with, we have a seriously unbalanced individual (P) who insists that he should have the right to own a flame thrower...

Actually, I think he does.

I don't know of any states that outlaw them. Or weedburners and other devices.

For that matter, you can make one by filling a SuperSoaker with WD-40. Dozens of videos of people doing it as well as the more powerful types of flamethrowers.
YouTube

Before you denounce him yet again, why don't you post anything in state law or federal law forbidding ownership of flamethrowers?