Posted on 01/16/2007 8:21:49 AM PST by Reagan Man
Today's deepest division is between those political observers who believe that Rudy Giuliani is a credible contender for the Republican presidential nomination and those who think that his chances are no better than those of California Rep. Duncan Hunter.
~snip~
Giuliani's strong showing in GOP polling reflects his celebrity status and the reputation he earned after the terrorist attacks. But if and when he becomes a candidate, that will change. He will be evaluated on the basis of different things, including his past and current positions and behavior, and he'll be attacked by critics and opponents. A Giuliani nomination would also generate a conservative third-party candidate in the general election and tear the GOP apart, thereby undercutting Giuliani's electability argument.
So, the former mayor might make a terrific general election candidate, but I don't see how he can get there as a Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
He's only "toast" in your mind. ;^)
"Le Flop"
It would behoove you to not post about things, until you actually know the facts. Otherwise, you look VERY foolish; in the extreme! :-)
That's a really SILLY ticket! LOL
Neither of those alternatives will happen. Guiliani certainly has no interest in any third party. Why would he? Only because of his love of country would he even CONSIDER running knowing the snakes lying in the grass ready to strike.
I say he won't make it out of the primaries. He would probably be a good D.C.I.
And don't forget what FR went through, during all of that nonsense.
As far as I, and I'm damn sure, a vast majority of FReepers are concerned: That's a deal breaker right there.
As a conservative, I do not support or promote liberal candidates from any political party. Nor do I condone liberalism of any kind. If you want to vote for the liberal Rudy Giuliani, feel free. I will not vote for Rudy to be the GOP nominee. Newt, McCain and Romney are far from perfect and all three have their problems on certain issues, but they also all stand head and shoulders above Giuliani. Example. On the abortion issue, Newt and McCain are pro-life. Romney hasn't made up his mind yet. Giuliani has been a supporter of abortion on demand and opposed to a ban on partial birth abortion his entire life. There are many other issues that make Giuliani the perfect example of a true blue liberal.
TAXES: Giuliani did cut the marginal city income tax rates, reducing taxes by some $2.0-billion from 1996-2001, but those cuts only offset the $1.8-billion increase in city income tax rates put in place by Mayor Dinkins a few years earlier. In the end, taxes were actually cut by a modest $200-million. Freezing the 12.5% surcharge on high wage earners was good, but Giuliani didn't attempt to abolish that surcharge. Nor did Giuliani abolish the city income tax. The primary reason Rudy and the City Council agreed to cut taxes, was to make NYCity more appealing to new businesses thinking about locating/relocating to the Big Apple. A smart move, however, overall, Rudy left office with NYCity the highest taxed big city in America, with some of the highest income taxes, property taxes and ultility rates in the nation.
GOVT SPENDING: From 1997 to 2001, spending under Giuliani went up 32%. More then double the rate of inflation. Rudy left NYCity with a $2.0 billion deficit and a $42-billion debt. Second largest debt after the federal government. Giuliani also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls. Increasing the membership of two major liberal organizations, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
From the Manhattan Institute:
"The scope of government was not reduced at all. The mayor abandoned his most visible initiative in this sphere—the proposed sale of the city hospital system—after a struggle with the unions and defeats in the courts. He did cut costs in social services; even before the new federal welfare reforms took effect in 1997, the city had begun to significantly reduce caseloads. But money saved on social services has only helped to subsidize big increases in other categories. Today the array of social services sponsored and partially funded by the city—from day care to virtually guaranteed housing—is as wide as ever.
"In the final analysis, Mayor Giuliani sought to make the city deliver services more efficiently—not to make the city deliver fewer services. Gains in efficiency were offset, however, by a spike in the costs of outsourced contracts (see point 2 below). Thus, in two areas where inroads might have been made, the city instead failed to reduce spending."
"1. Personnel Increases. In 1995–96, the city entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with its public-employee unions. In addition to granting pay increases that ended up roughly equaling inflation, the city promised not to lay off any workers for the life of the contracts. These agreements were expected to add $2.2 billion to the budget by fiscal 2001. But that estimate didn’t reckon with renewed growth in the number of city employees. After dipping in Giuliani’s first two years, the full-time headcount rose from 235,069, in June 1996 to over 253,000 by November 2000. Thanks largely to this growth in the workforce, the total increase in personnel service costs since 1995 has been $4 billion.
2. "Outsourced Services. The failure to shrink the scope of city government made it all the more imperative that Mayor Giuliani vastly increase its efficiency. In the attempt to increase productivity, the mayor farmed out some city services to private contractors. But as the number of outsourced contracts doubled under Giuliani, contractual expenses also nearly doubled—from $3 billion to $5.8 billion. While it may be argued that the city saved money by outsourcing these services, the net savings turned out to be marginal at best. In practice, outsourcing proved to be more of a bargaining chip in negotiations with unions than a serious means of pruning expenses."
Once again, hard evidence that Rudy Giuliani was NO fiscal conservative. Another run-of-the-mill NYCity liberal.
This contest is gonna boil down to a Liberal New Yorker ( Giuliani) versus a VERY Liberal New Yorker ( Clinton). We will fret ,snort, stamp our feet and pull our hair out. Then we will push the button for Giuliani.
Rothenberg is a Dem, hardly an objective analyst.
Okay. Now, read the article, and then come back and tell me where he went wrong. Fair enough?
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.