President Rudy Giuliani?

Guiliani/Gingrinch in 2008..or, if you prefer.."Rudy/Newtie"

Yes I do but I didn't ping you because you are on the thread.

The Real Rudy Giuliani:

Pro-abortion - He even opposes banning partial birth murder.
Anti-2nd Amendment - supports gun grabbing legislation including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban
Pro-big government - amassed unprecedented debt as Mayor of NYC
Pro-radical gay agenda

- Attended and marched in every gay pride parade in NYC while mayor (even one in 1992 that included a NAMBLA contingent of pedophile activists)
- Attends and supports many functions and fund-raisers held by radical gay organizations (even did a cross dressing act at Pride Agenda fund-raiser)
- Openly opposes Constitutional Amendment to protect tradition marriage which is supported by President Bush and the Republican Party Platform.
- Supported "domestic partner" and "civil union" bills in City Council while mayor of NYC.
- Submitted Gay "Domestic-Partner" Rights Bill to City Council giving gay and lesbian couples the same benefits reserved for married couples.
- Said, "I'm proud of it" when referring to the gay "domestic partner" bill he submitted. Said, "National Republicans can lump it if they don't like this new domestic-partners bill...I think it puts New York City ahead of other places in the country."
- Has received awards from several radical gay agenda organizations who support gay marriage for his support of their cause. Is considered a "champion" of gay "rights."
- Lived with a gay "married" couple in Manhattan when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his second divorce.
- Said that homosexuality is "good and normal"
Pro-illegal immigration - said no one in New York City is going to assist the federal government with the enforcement of immigration law, sued Feds in 1997 to be able to ignore immigration law, lost in court, vowed to ignore law anyway
Endorses liberal Democrat candidates over Republicans - endorsed liberal Dem Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki in NY Governor's race
Ran for NYC Mayor in 1994 on Liberal Party ticket. Appointed Liberal Party State Chair to a Deputy Mayor position. Endorsed 3 times by the Liberal Party for his liberal views.
Holds many other liberal views
Republican In Name Only - opposes many major planks of the GOP Platform

Read more about Giuliani's liberal positions here and here.

Some people want Republicans to ignore his liberalism on almost every issue and, as a distraction, they try to pretend that Rudy is fiscally conservative. Again, his record shows that he isn't fiscally conservative either:

According to an article in The Nation from 2002:

It's now apparent that Giuliani purchased the city's good times partially with borrowed money and left his successor, Mike Bloomberg, holding a bag of debt. New York City went from a $3 billion budget surplus in 1998 to a $4.5 billion deficit after Giuliani left office. This mismanagement of prosperity is a big part of his legacy. Giuliani left the city's finances in a mess...

Here are some things Giuliani did as Mayor that were NOT anywhere near being fiscally conservative:

New York City went from a $3 billion budget surplus in 1998 to a $4.5 billion deficit after Giuliani left office.

Added 25,000 government employees patronage hires to the city's payroll after promising to cut the work force.

Giuliani's borrowing practices increased the city's debt burden by 50 percent.

Partly because of Giuliani, New York City is now the biggest debtor in the nation outside of the federal government with $42 billion in loans outstanding.

According to the article from The Nation:

During the 1960s Giuliani was a self-described "Robert Kennedy Democrat." He identified with RFK as a liberal Catholic prosecutor. He volunteered for RFK's 1968 presidential campaign while he was a student at NYU Law School. Giuliani also voted for George McGovern in 1972. During the liberal 1960s, he was a liberal.
But in 1975 Giuliani switched his party registration from Democrat to Independent when he got a job in Gerald Ford's Justice Department, according to his mentor Harold "Ace" Tyler.
On December 8, 1980, Giuliani changed his registration from Independent to Republican. This was one month after Ronald Reagan's election, and just as he was applying for a top job in the Justice Department.

So, to sum that up:

Liberal Democrat until 1975
Worked as volunteer for Democrat Robert F. Kennedy's presidential campaign.
Voted for liberal George McGovern.
Liberal Independent from 1975-1980.
Did not register as a Republican until 1980 and only AFTER Ronald Reagan was elected and because he was applying for a top job in the administration.

He's a liberal. He's not even in the same building as conservative. He's only a Republican because...and this comes from his own mother, Helen Giuliani:

"He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He's definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn't..."

And as John Hawkins put it in an excellent article in Human Events:

Despite all of his charisma and the wonderful leadership he showed after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is not a Reagan Republican. To the contrary, Giuliani is another Christie Todd Whitman, another Arlen Specter, another Olympia Snowe. He's a throwback to the "bad old days" before Reagan, when the GOP was run by moderate Country Club Republicans who considered conservatives to be extremists. Trying to revive that failed strategy again is likely to lead to a Democratic President in 2008 and numerous setbacks for the Republican Party.

"At least Newt hasn't been through as many marriages..."

They are both 3 time losers!

Giuliani is married to Judith Nathan in his third marriage. He has two children, Andrew and Caroline, from a marriage with Donna Hanover, and one stepdaughter, Whitney, from the relationship with Nathan. Giuliani was also previously married to Regina Peruggi, his second cousin.

Gingrich has been married three times. He married his first wife, Jackie Battley, in 1962, and divorced her in 1981. Gingrich married his second wife, Marianne Ginther, in the fall of 1981.[2] They divorced in 1999, after revealing that he had been having an affair with a House aide, Callista Bisek.[3] Gingrich and Bisek were married the following year. - source - wikpedia

LOL Sorry about that! It's RUDY's FAULT!!

Giuliani BUMP!

Thanks Spiff.

I was actually pinging you to let you know I posted this article. By the time I got it done you had already appeared on the thread.

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 the New York City government payroll by 19%, eliminating unnecessary civil servants from the public dole. Can anyone remember the last time a Republican president was able to send lazy federal workers packing? Inheriting a multi-billion dollar deficit, Rudy turned it into a surplus, delivering eight consecutive balanced budgets. Folks, this ain’t Linc Chafee we’re talking about here.

Giuliani: Tough enough to take on the bad guys

Unlike the Democrats, who are too nuanced to acknowledge that the “bad guys” in life even exist, Rudy Giuliani knows how to identify a threat to safety and security and pound that threat into submission. Giuliani’s record on crime in NYC is well-documented; if Rudy is able to do to the terrorists what he did to the crime lords of the Big Apple, Americans will once again be able to feel secure in an uncertain world. Sure, every Republican will talk tough on terror, but only Rudy’s proven he actually knows how to eliminate a threat terrorizing a population.

Rudy will secure our borders

An essential component of national security includes securing America’s borders. Unfortunately, President Bush has been unwilling to take the necessary steps to accomplish that task. While John McCain and Mitt Romney discuss “comprehensive” solutions, Rudy is ready to do what it takes to prevent individuals from illegally entering the United States. During his recent visit to Minnesota, Rudy laid out his immigration plan, which begins with sealing the borders and also involves ensuring that immigrants learn English so that they can be better assimilated into American culture. As such, Rudy is to the right of President Bush on this issue.

Giuliani would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary

Social conservatives who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and who fear the imposition of same-sex marriage on unwilling populations by judicial fiat have a friend in Giuliani. Rudy has now explicitly voiced support for the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench. His recent trip to Minnesota included an admission that he would appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. During this same trip, Rudy also confirmed that he believes legislatures, and not judges, should set policy. A Giuliani presidency would now almost certainly fail to yield judicial rulings from the federal bench in favor of gay marriage, and would be at least as likely as any other Republican presidency to see abortion returned to the political process, where it belongs.

Rudy believes that marriage is between a man and a woman

Mayor Giuliani has made clear his belief in traditional marriage only; that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, and in no other form. Says Rudy:

“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case,…”

Some social conservatives are uncomfortable that Rudy doesn’t support amending the Constitution to make sure this definition of marriage stands. But Rudy has made clear that he’ll do whatever it takes to maintain the traditional definition of marriage; he just thinks the constitutional amendment is the wrong strategy right now. I agree. As long as judges like Roberts and Alito are on the bench — the type that Rudy would appoint as president — a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.

Giuliani understands the party he’s leading

Unlike McCain, who basically told southern, religious conservatives where they could go back in 2000, Rudy understands that he’s campaigning to lead the party of the sunbelt — a party that is more pro-life and pro-gun than his New York constituents. As such, the mayor has given no indication that he will turn his presidency into some sort of pro-abortion, pro-gun control crusade, and every indication that he will defer to his base on those issues. We’ve yet to get definitive statements from Rudy regarding abortion or the Second Amendment in the last few years. While Rudy opponents trot out statements from the 1990s or even the 1980s on those issues, let’s wait and see where Rudy stands in 2006 before passing any judgment. Mayor Giuliani might just surprise pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives with his interpretation of how the president, and not the mayor of the most liberal city in the country, should handle these hot-button cultural issues. At the very least, Giuliani appears prepared to do no harm to conservatives on these issues while promising to advance their causes via the appointment of conservative judges.

Rudy Giuliani is absolutely electable

Despite what John Hawkins says, Rudy is probably the most electable Republican in the country right now. In fact, it would be very, very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which Rudy would lose to any Democrat, and the mayor would easily trounce the Gore/Kerry sort of Democrat that the Left insists on nominating time after time. If Hillary or Gore is the nominee in 2008, Rudy would win the electoral college in a walk. Here’s why.

First, the impact of an ethnic Catholic leading a presidential ticket must not be understated. The entire industrial north is a region filled with Catholics of eastern and southern European descent. This includes states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, which went for John Kerry by only two and three percentage points in 2004, respectively. Identity politics alone would likely garner Giuliani a couple of extra percentage points across the Rust Belt, just as President Bush likely benefited from his southern evangelical status in states filled with southern evangelicals.

Secondly, Rudy’s fiscally-conservative profile is very similar to the Republican executives elected by the voters of states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. By reminding upper-midwestern voters of their favorite governors, like Tommy Thompson, John Engler, and Tom Ridge, Rudy would likely garner another few points out of the Rust Belt.

So let’s say that Rudy’s ethnic Catholic, working class background, combined with his Rust Belt-style positions on the issues, is able to increase the GOP presidential ticket’s vote share by five percent from 2004 across the Rust Belt, which includes the states bordered by Minnesota and Iowa in the west and New Jersey in the east. The result of this sort of a swing would send the following states into the “red” column: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. That’s another 58 electoral votes for the GOP ticket.

Now, John Hawkins will argue that’s all for naught, as Rudy, who is unable to pound the podium regarding life issues with the same tenacity as President Bush, will likely lose a few points across the South. Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s assume that Rudy’s presidential ticket loses five points from Bush’s 2004 totals in every single southern state simply because he’s a) not an evangelical, b) he can’t call himself pro-life, and c) he’s not for amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I think assuming a five point loss in every southern state is more than generous to John’s argument in this case, and I suspect Hawkins would agree. Now, let’s see how many southern states Rudy loses with that five point loss across the South…

Absolutely none.

In fact, the only state that would be teetering on the edge with a five point reduction in the South from Bush’s 2004 numbers would be Florida, a state filled with ex-New-Yorkers who would almost certainly make up for any sort of Bush-Giuliani gap in the region. The fact of the matter is simply that the GOP has succeeded in Republicanizing the South to the extent that most southern states are simply no longer in danger of turning “blue” during a presidential election. Mark Warner might be able to win a few of them against Arlen Specter, but as has been demonstrated above, Rudy’s no Arlen Specter. And Hillary Clinton is no Mark Warner.

Further, Hawkins’ argument that Rudy couldn’t survive without the support of the GOP base is very true. As such, it’s a good thing that Rudy has been able to attain the support of that very base. Rudy generally garners between 85% and 90% of Republicans in a hypothetical matchup against a standard blue-state Democrat like Hillary Clinton. These numbers are just ever-so-slightly shy of Bush’s 90-plus percent GOP support against Kerry in 2004. And while it’s true that Rudy’s support among independents and Democrats will fluctuate, it’s probably also true that Rudy will at least win independents in the general election, which the president couldn’t do two years ago. Given those considerations, it’s hard to see how Rudy can be viewed as anything other than supremely electable.

Conclusion

Of the current GOP 2008 field, Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who brings to the table the charisma and leadership of a Reagan, the transformative conservative policies of a Gingrich, and the seriousness regarding the GWOT of a Bush. Giuliani is perfectly suited to lead today’s sunbelt center-right GOP due to his belief in low taxes, fiscal responsibility, market-based government reform, traditional marriage, conservative judges, securing the borders, and, last but certainly not least, the destruction of the terrorist threat against America. Only Rudy can package all of this conservatism in a manner that appeals to large numbers of swing voters while still maintaining solid levels of support among the Republican base. Rudy Giuliani would almost certainly sweep the electoral college against any Democrat by holding all of the red states, most of which are now so heavily Republican that only a very conservative Democrat has a chance of winning them, while flipping the electoral-rich Rust Belt that has at least as much of a cultural connection with Giuliani as the South did with President Bush. Tough, conservative, and electable, conservatives could do a lot worse than Rudy Giuliani.

I disagree. The country doesn't want a true conservative, we've seen that. They won't vote for a far-right republican.
IMO, Rudy is the Republican's best bet at this point.

LOL Sorry!

I know, I mean jeez, I didn't interrupt his wedding plans with any major announcements.;)

Mark your calendars....

May 15, 2007

South Carolina GOP and FOX News sponsor Republican presidential candidates debate

I like Rudy but I have a few Republican Governors on my list that come way before him.

Sanford, Pawlenty, Barbour, Romney and Huckabee.

Santorum/Hunter '08

I won't for a Dammocrap with an "R" pasted to his back.

If Mr. Giuliani is the "Republican" nominee, then the election is already lost. No matter who wins, a liberal Democrat wins.

No thanks.

You got it. With nothing to choose from, no real difference on many core issues (remember 'family values', anyone?), the base will fail to be energized and just not vote or vote third party.

The lesson of the midterms was no one wants Republicans who act like Democrats, and a couple of good people got caught up in that backlash, too.

In the meantime, the Dems shifted to the right with their campaign rhetoric and took the swing vote.

Let's not repeat that in the POTUS election.

Anybody else notice Hillary morphing to the right over the last year? That reinventing stuff can be potent with the DBM beating your drum endlessly, waaay out of proportion for a junior Senator. She will get gobs more free 'face time' to weave a new web of lies for '08--and those who do not remember will buy in. New (young) voters have traditionally been fertile fields for the Democrat plow, and after being heavily manured, generally yield well for them.

Whoever goes up against that will be picked apart if the opportunity presents itself, and the media will orchestrate one, if need be.

Frankly, Rudy would be shredded. He does have a place at the table, so to speak, and can do the party a lot of good, but not as the candidate for POTUS.

The times we are living in call out for such a communicator.

I'll grant that, but the communicator can be the White House press secretary, they do not have to be POTUS.

That's an excellent post BTW. It's gonna see a lot of action between now and the election.

That's a terrific explanation of Rudy. I agree with you for the most part. If I had my way, I would run a ticket of Newt Gingrich/Rudy Giuliani. My preference would be Newt on the top of the ticket with Rudy as VP, but the reverse might yield more votes, which should be our obvious goal.

However, reading this thread and the reflexive anti-Rudy sentiment expressed by so many, I am beginning to fear that our nation is headed for DARK DAYS with the Democrats remaining in power for a long, long time. If we can't get Social Conservatives to hold their nose and vote for Rudy, a guy who is tougher than tough on Crime and National Security, then we are in SEVERE trouble as a movement. And if this thread is any indication at all, I think we may be doomed to wander in the wilderness for a long, long time.

I hope all the anti-Rudy people here on this forum enjoy Hillary and the rest of her Socialist minions...this thread makes me wanna cry...