Jim Nussle on Giuliani

National Review ^ | 1/31/07

[areafiftyone]

Nussle on Giuliani   [Rich Lowry]

Here’s a pro-Giuliani bit from Jim Nussle that I pass along for what it’s worth:

Dear Rich, I wanted to share with conservatives why I'm supporting Mayor Giuliani.  As a proud and consistent conservative Republican, I want our Party and our ideas to have a voice.  Even more importantly, I want our Party and our ideas to achieve meaningful results.

“Perfect” has become the enemy of the “good”, and we saw that borne out during this past November’s elections. I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.

It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I don’t agree on every issue. My support for a person who doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all issues doesn’t mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs. But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.

I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us.  It is the only way we can successfully move forward as both a Party and a country.

Rudy Giuliani is the results Republican our country needs. Mayor Giuliani took office facing difficult challenges. New York City was littered with crime, corruption and decay. The city’s murder rate was so high that an uncommon day was one with only a few murders.

The Mayor led a team that reduced crime and reformed welfare.  He cut taxes 23 times while actually reducing the size of the City bureaucracy.  The Mayor transformed a historic deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus with a balanced budget.  New York City became a safe place for families and small businesses to invest in their future. In Rudy Giuliani, New Yorkers had a leader. One they could believe in. 

All of this he did before the tragedy of September 11, 2001. That day the rest of the world witnessed Mayor Giuliani’s steady and principled leadership firsthand.

Today, America needs to make progress in so many difficult areas, and on so many fronts that while addressing challenges with philosophical absolutes makes for good rhetoric, it oftentimes achieves little by way of results.

After over 20 years in public service, I am still confident that free enterprise, living the American Dream and putting the protection of our nation first are the right ideals for the direction of this country. 

Rudy Giuliani has consistently governed under these ideals, turning rhetoric into results, which is why I am confident President Rudy Giuliani will be best for our country come November 2008.

01/30 05:36 PM

[Dark Skies]

I listened to Mike Huckabee on Russert Sunday and he became a definite NO!

I don't think I would know Huckabee if he knocked on my front door, but what did he say or do that was such a turn-off for you?

[tiger-one]

you may have valid points, but I saw the Hunter interviewed by Stephie on ABC, I think he comes across as knowledgeable, firm and honest. Also read one the CA commie rags wrote something about him not paying taxes on his mansion. Hunter took out a full page ad with a photo of his mansion..it was a dump...hearsay on my part. Newt does not relate to Joe Sixpack. Newt is a visionary..

[xzins]

Let's face facts here:

1. McCain is damaged goods for all his liberal positions and the Keating Five.

2. Giuliani is damaged goods for messy divorce, living with gay couple, and being pro-gun, pro-abortion, and pro-gay agenda.

3. Romney is damaged goods for being from the Kerry Flip-Flop state (is there something in the water there?)

4. Gingrich is damaged goods for a messy cruel divorce.

Those are our "front-runners?"

We'd better find someone else. We'd better be fair.

And independents are not turned off by social conservatives who can deal with a microphone and the media.

Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, etc. are those who've come forward.

Personally, I wish we were running Cheney, North, Franks, Jeb, ...even Rice.....someone like that.

[Arizona Carolyn]

When they got into taxes he really waffled. He received an F in Arkansas as Governor due to raising so many taxes and yet he says he is a tax-cutter when history shows otherwise.

I think he is a good man, and probably was a very good preacher, I'm not certain he has the toughness for the WOT and to stand up to this congress.

[xzins]

see #223

[Arizona Carolyn]

Newt is a great Professor. He also seems to have a strong desire to be "fair" with both sides of the aisle and shares all this think-tank info with the dem candidates as well as GOP. I'm not sure the Dems have any thinkers as brilliant as Newt and if he kept to the GOP only could really help our candidates, but he is insisting on being fair... right now I don't feel fair toward the Democratic party.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Jeb.... no way in hell will I vote for him... nice guy, was a good governor but no more dynasties as in the Kennedy's, Clintons, Bush's, Rockefellers, etc....

[Alberta's Child]

OK -- that was a good first cut. For the sake of this discussion I'd say let's disregard any particular order and assume that everything on a list of key issues is equally important.

For one thing, I would take Executive Experience off the table. I believe this is an important characteristic for a candidate to have, but it certainly isn't an "issue" in any sense. The same holds true for Electability.

So now we're down to 8 issues, not 10. Let's add Illegal Immigration and Personal Ethics into the mix, since both of these issues played prominent roles in the 2006 elections.

So here's our new List of 10 Issues:

1 - Abortion
2 - Gay rights
3 - Right to Keep/Bear Arms
4 - "War on Terror"
5 - Fiscal Responsibility
6 - Supreme Court
7 - Law and Order
8 - States' Rights
9 - Illegal Immigration
10 - Personal Ethics

I also happen to think the protection of private property rights is an absolutely critical issue on a national level, but for the sake of this discussion we can assume that Item #8 would refer to "legitimate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution" instead of applying only to States' Rights. And my concerns over two of the most important issues from the standpoint of the Federal budget (entitlement reform and taxation) would be covered under Item #5 (Fiscal Responsibility).

As I see it, Giuliani would get a "conservative" grade of 0 (on a scale of 0 to 1) on these five: #1, #2, #3, #7, and #9. Most people assume #7 (Law and Order) is one of his strengths, but a candidate -- especially a former Federal prosecutor -- who has shown a willingness to openly violate Federal law when he sees fit (check out his track record on illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York City) has basically disqualified himself on this point.

My opinion is that Rudy Giuliani would get a "conservative" grade of 1 on only one issue -- #5 (Fiscal Responsibility). I'd give him a grade of 0.5 on another one (#10), and an "Incomplete" on the following:

4 - "War on Terror" (because nobody knows what the heck this means)
6 - Supreme Court (because nobody has any idea what Rudy Giuliani's legal/judicial philosophy is)
8 - States' Rights (because I've never even heard Rudy Giuliani utter this phrase, and I've never seen any indication that he believes in this)

So you basically have a guy who scores 1.5 out of 7, with 3 incompletes. The 1.5 out of 7 computes to 21%, so I'm really not that far off here.

[tiger-one]

The days of being fair to the Libs should have ended years ago. Fair is we win, we are the majority. We lead you follow or get off at the nest stop.

[dirtboy]

I had him at 33 percent.

But somehow that makes us unappeasables and 100 percenters.

Must be that new math. From the same folks who are convinced he can reach 51 percent of the vote.

[dirtboy]

The same holds true for Electability.

Electibility can only be proven by elections. So far, Rudy's never won an election outside NYC. That's hardly a good sample for an entire country as to his electoral appeal. And his poll numbers in the 2000 NY Senate race were not very good prior to his withdrawal, so he doesn't even seem to have a good electoral appeal in his home state - just as Al Gore's inability to win his home state ended up being his undoing in 2000.

[JimFreedom]

Whats fun really about this little exercise is that we have been defining the items in the list, so you could do it over and over again and keep refining the list. Me I am happy to have moved you above 15 :). I think you played fair and square.

Now your task is to get Hunter above '-' or whomever your candidate is.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I can go along with that.... though I suspect their sides feels the same way and is why the two are so incompatible.

[Alberta's Child]

The fact that Bernard Kerik had dirt in his closet made him not confirmable but did not effect his excellent creds for anti-terror chief.

Bernie Kerik had almost ZERO credentials as an "anti-terror chief" -- and his nomination was withdrawn for reasons other than simple political considerations.

[Dark Skies]

Thx.

[xzins]

I don't really care about that kind of thing.

If he's the best guy running, then he's the best guy.

[Alberta's Child]

Even if you could measure "electability" accurately, the problem is that a presidential election is unlike anything else in America. It's basically a national election carried out in 51 individual elections, so measuring a candidate's electability in this context is very difficult.

[California Patriot]

Please don't clutter up the thread with this krap.

[baubau]

I like that one better than the one I plagiarized earlier.

Now, my question to you: may I plagiarize yours?

About a Rudy/Tancredo team? Do you theng it's an incompatible team?

[areafiftyone]

Yes you may plagerize it. LOL!

Actually Tancredo is a tough guy like Rudy - I like him. It would be a good ticket!