Posted on 01/31/2007 8:47:58 AM PST by Reagan Man
According to Lupika... Rudy had no accoplishments before 9/11.
Lupika is a liar and I bet to much of a coward to say that to Rudy's face.
Yeah, I know, you hate Lupica.
>>>>>I've explained to you twice now how the MI got it wrong. And you've got no answers.
You explained nothing. You offered your opinion, thats it! You didn't dispute the facts. Not once. All your doing is attempting to spin Rudy`s liberal record into something that appears more acceptable. Won't work.
Lupica got it right.
"Giuliani ought to ask himself how he gets the nomination of a right-wing, red-state party with his positions in favor of stem-cell research and gun control and gay civil marriages and abortion. If he really does make his run, how do those views play on the Dick Cheney news channels, or in the Church of the Religious Right?"
Lupica brings up many good issues for conservatives to ponder about Giuliani. Obviously these issues are of no concern to you.
Yeah, I know, you hate Lupica. More whining and crying.
The truth is we don't have any solid conservative candidate - not yet, anyway. Romney is downright dangerous to conservatism, and McCain is ...well....McCain. Huckabee is a good guy, but I doubt he can raise the money.
Really? Can you substantiate this sudden epiphany with some documentation? Because they kept proposing tax increases as if this revelation had never magically occurred the second after Dinkins left office.
The goal was to reduce taxes just enough to possibly get businesses to locate or relocate into NYCity.
And that's why they proposed a "living wage" law - because they were trying to woo businesses" Please, give me a break.
The main reason it worked was thanks to a strong national economy that was expanding in the 1990`s.
NYC generates almost 10% of America's GDP. The US economy does not expand unless NYC's economy expands. NYC's GMP is a leading indicator of America's GDP, not the reverse.
NYC's economy began expanding because crime fell dramatically, making people comfortable doing business in and visiting NYC again.
To those of us living in NYC at the time the change was palpable - when Dinkins left office, my local subway station was filthy, covered in silverpen and scratch grafitti, stank of urine and had 10 or more bums lying around the platform when I left my apartment for work. Every single day I was accosted by two or sometimes more bums while taking a 4 station subway ride.
Within months of Giuliani taking office, the station was clean, smelled like disinfectant, the walls were painted and unmarked and all the bums were gone. I saw more policemen on my subway train than bums and no one was asking for a handout anymore.
And I noticed another thing - on the way home there were more and more attractive women - many from abroad - riding the subway downtown. Why? They felt safe enough to ride the subway.
It became commonplace by the end of the year to see a dozen young tourists chatting on my subway car - something that had become increasingly rare in NYC under Dinkins.
Bryant Park, which was known as a good place to score coke when Dinkins was mayor, was cleaned up, the bums and dealers driven out, and the NY Public Library started showing movies on a big screen in the park - the park lawn was filled every Monday with hip young people watching classic movies and having picnics.
The change was like night and day.
Businesses sprung up around the park within weeks.
That was not due to some knock-on effect from the larger economy: it was because the park was safe again thanks to responsible law enforcement by the mayor's PD.
Rudy and the City Council agreed to cut back on the socialism of the city govt.
It is painfully apparent how little you kinow about the workings of NYC. The City Council fought Giuliani tooth and nail - they agreed on almost nothing.
A common feature of the news coverage in NYC at that time was dueling, separate press conferences between the Council and the Mayor, each side excoriating the other.
Under Dinkins, it was one press conference with the Council members standing behind the mayor smiling.
This isn't about Reagan.
In other words, you admit that it was not Reagan's fault that he was unable to abolish the federal income tax.
Why is it Giuliani's fault that he wasn't able to abolish the municipal income tax?
NYC is the most overtaxed big city in America and Rudy is a liberal.
All American cities are overtaxed. NYC is not as highly taxed as San Francisco or Philadelphia or Boston. And Giuliani left NYC with a smaller tax burden than when he found it.
You offered nothing of substance to the debate about Giuliani adn hsi liebral record as mayor.
I explained to you why his record as mayor was not fiscally liberal and why the MI study you quoted had deep flaws.
You failed to address those points, I didn't fail to make them.
Again, why is it fair to blame Giuliani for an obstructionist City Council but not fair to blame Reagan for an obstructionist Congress?
Note that your (presumably leftist) author, despite an empty promise of "facts," then precedes to say not a damn thing about Giuliani's performance as mayor. Excepting a vague arm-wave about "race relations" (the sign Rudy put on his door specifying no admittance to Al Sharpton?) it's all smear, and most of that pretty vague too.
Fact is Giuliani was one of the best, likely the best, mayor New York, or any major American city, ever had.
Given that Giuliani's right on the WOT, and even right at the conceptual level (pro-excellence, pro-competition, anti-dependence) on most domestic issues, I can live with him being left on abortion and a few other things.
Exactly. I understand what you're saying. Its also an an insightful commentary on Rudy Giuliani the person. And in the next year you will be seeing more and more people, both liberals and conservatives, coming out with more perspective analysis of Rudy Giuliani. This will work to undermine his candidacy by revealing the truth about the man and his lifetime record of liberalism.
In other words, you haven't read my posts.
You explained nothing. You offered your opinion, thats it!
Is it my opinion that the New York City Council had a Democrat supermajority throughout Giuliani's two terms, or is it an historical fact?
Is it my opinion that the mayor of New York City does not have the legal authority to unilaterally abolish the municipal income tax, or is it a legal fact?
Is it my opinion that Giuliani opposed and successfully defeated more than dozen tax-increasing Council measures - most prominently the "living wage" proposal - as mayor, or is it an historical fact?
Lupica got it right.
A mantra is not an argument.
Again, explain to us why it is OK to call Giuliani a fiscal liberal for not abolishing NYC's municipal income tax, but not OK to call Reagan a fiscal liberal for not abolishing America's federal income tax.
I'd love to hear you address that one instead of what I usually get from you, which is:
More whining and crying..
Tommy, I thought you were a conservative. Are you calling other conservatives "Nazis" or "Rudynazis"? If so, I'm disappointed. :< We don't do that to each other just because we don't like a candidate that somebody else finds acceptable.
I don't know who you support in the field so far, but none of them are a great choice, imo, and I hope somebody better emerges soon. But whomever you support, I would not consider you a Nazi for that support. We're all struggling to try to hang onto the White House in order to keep Hillary and/or Obama out, so right now we're all in the "Anyone But Hillary Or Obama" boat together, and it looks like some are ready to throw you overboard for brash ad hominems, my friend. I'm just suggesting that this is not a subject that we should allow to divide us as conservatives with a common goal, thus terms such as "Nazi" for your fellow freepers just don't apply.
Agree there. Probably couldn't support Rudy as a first choice, but that's usually academic here in Texas anyway as the candidate is usually all but decided by the time our primaries roll around.
But I'd enthusiastically support Giuliani, should he secure the nomination, against any likely 'Rat. Couldn't say the same, as for enthusiasm anyway, for McCain who has no proven administrative ability, astoundingly poor policy judgment, and a thin-skinned, self-absorbed, unbalanced temperament.
|
Right now I think we're all looking at and judging the least of the three evils we have to choose from. I feel the same way about Romney that you do about Rudy, but I also agree we should support a true conservative. The problem is that the only true conservatives with their hats in the ring so far are Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee, who is also in and also a good guy, probably can't raise the money. McCain and Romney are going to suck up all the money, and Rudy, too, if he confirms.
Exactly. He isn't even running yet, but his supporters are trying to force us into choosing him now. This is ridiculous.
Huckabee is just a non-starter, what with his badmouthing of the President and his complete inability to articulate policy on a number of issues.
Hunter is a real conservative, but he does some flaky stuff.
Romney is a liberal.
Giuliani is a liberal.
McCain is a semi-liberal loose cannon.
Gingrich is pretty conservative but carries a lot of negative baggage.
Tancredo is a whack job.
Ron Paul is a whack job.
It's a pretty thin field - I'm not happy with it at all.
Conservative women are not emotional and liberal, and we despise Bubba and his so-called "wife" and all the women who stuck up for him. Your comment would make more sense over at DU.
I despised the sight of Bubba, and certainly never found him to be charismatic or charming.
Why do you keep trolling conservative women on this forum with such stupid comments?
Then that's perfectly consistent with what I posted.
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.