Posted on 01/31/2007 8:47:58 AM PST by Reagan Man
Rudy Giuliani runs for President, if he runs, from the same place where George Bush still tries to run his war in Iraq - from the rubble and ashes of Sept. 11.
Giuliani doesn't run from any city he still governs, or any state, or even from the U.S. Senate. He runs from a place called Sept. 11, and you would, too.
Giuliani runs, if he runs, from a job to which he was never elected, just appointed. Or perhaps anointed. It's the job of America's Mayor, and it is the best job he is ever going to have, one with which he can have a longer run than a Supreme Court justice if he plays his cards right.
When you are the mythical mayor of America, instead of a declared candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, it means nobody wants to talk about what kind of mayor of New York City you were before Sept. 11, 2001. That is a real good thing for Giuliani.
There are a lot of reasons why Giuliani should quit while he is ahead in some of the polls, but the best is this: the inevitable collision between some of the myths that have grown up around him in the last six years and the facts.
If the other guys in the race just let him run on Sept. 11, let that be the only thing in play - "It really is all people see," one veteran Democrat said last weekend in New Hampshire - then he wins the nomination. Only it doesn't work that way, not in a world where everything is in play, and where the whole process, with each passing election, becomes dumber than Britney Spears.
The only thing Giuliani has run since leaving office is the booming franchise of Giuliani. He has written a huge best seller and made a small fortune giving speeches all over the world. He has run a lucrative consulting business, one that enables him to fly down to a place like Mexico City for a few days, explain to them how they can reduce the crime rate and then he pockets big change.
Only now he sounds as if he is talking himself into making a run for the nomination it is hard to see him ever getting, one that is hard to see him ever getting from the yahoos in his party, even if he is ahead in some polls the way Hillary Clinton is ahead, mostly for being famous.
But 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?
Giuliani ought to ask how long he will be on the stump before everybody starts banging away at him with Bernard Kerik, his police commissioner and former business partner, someone Giuliani thought would be a tremendous head of Homeland Security after turning the job down himself. Kerik is another one who wants you to think he cleaned up crime in New York City all by himself, another guy with a badge who thought the law applied to everybody except him.
Kerik will be in play the way Giuliani's second wife, Donna Hanover, and the way she found out about the breakup of her marriage on television, will be in play. So will the whole subject of race relations in the city during Giuliani's time running it. And even the conditions under which the rescue workers worked at Ground Zero.
Did Giuliani find the best in himself during those first days after the planes flew into our buildings? He did. He did his job and, in doing that job, got carried along by the best in the city, as if he was one of the ironworkers who came walking over the bridge from Stuyvesant High School that first afternoon, coming from everywhere, carrying their tools in leather bags, the ones who told the police, "We're here to work."
And when the police asked them how that day, the ironworkers said, "We cut steel, you're gonna need us." And kept walking towards the ruins of the World Trade Center.
When people see Giuliani now, they see that. They see it all, with Giuliani in the foreground. They see the city getting up, slowly at first, then defiantly. The life of the city changed forever that day. So did Giuliani's. No longer was he a man with a complicated life running the world's most complicated city. He was seen as a hero.
America's Mayor. He runs, if he runs, from there. And if it was only that, if how you did that day and in the days to follow, he wins. It isn't the only issue. There are a lot of them with Rudy Giuliani and always were and always will be.
He never ran for the Senate in the end; he never ran for governor. Now the yes-men he's always had around him tell him he can get the nomination for President. It would be easy if it were all Sept. 11, 2001. The problem for Giuliani is Sept. 10.
Candidate X hasn't done anything for the last 5 years...while candidate Y has done this, this, and this. Now that would have some substance that people might actually listen to and think about instead of rolling their eyes, turning back to the sports section and failing to show up at the polls on election day.
You haven't read my posts at all, have you?
The fact remains that any attack on Giuliani's record as a chief executive is bound to fail, since he was an excellent chief executive.
If you want to promote some other GOP hopeful against Giuliani, it's best to forgo comparing the executive experience of any other GOP primary candidate against Giuliani because that's a losing proposition in each case.
The case against Giuliani cannot be built on the lie that he was a bad mayor, but only on the truth that he is very wrong on some very key issues.
Do you really think McCain has been steadfast in the WOT, given his expansive vision of rights for terrorists? Having said that, despite the damage a President McCain (shudder) would do to the Constitution, I agree with you--- a President McCain would be better than, say, a President Rodham Clinton, Obama or Biden.
The field is wide open right now. See me in 3-9 months and I might have a chosen candidate by then. Then again, I might not choose a candidate until the GOP convention. That will be my decision. Suffice it to say, I won't be voting for a liberal named Rudy Giuliani. Obviously, you will be voting for Rudy. And thats your right to do so. As a conservative, its my duty to oppose liberalism in every way, shape and form, including opposing the liberal Rudy Giuliani candidacy for the GOP nomination.
So will the whole subject of race relations in the city during Giuliani's time running it.
Lupica's point is clear: Giuliani has run on 9/11 because that's all he's got and his record as mayor will somehow hurt him.
Coming from NY, I think your POV maybe a bit tainted.
And I suppose this same liberal rag thinks Obama Osama Hussein is overly qualified....
Oh, and a woman who the only reason she's a frontrunner is because of her husbands last name?
Possibly...but I do try to stay objective. I'd just like to hear more about what's good about candidates, or at least when someone brings up something negative to follow it up with why another candidate brings more to the table that's all.
...and then I woke up. I know.
The GOP needs a conservative at the top of the ticket in 2008. Not a liberal.
I find that criticism to be particularly hilarious - a self-styled conservative claiming that if someone doesn't hold a government job then they're not doing anything.
I don't hear the same criticism of Newt Gingrich.
Since I pulled a direct quote from the Lupica article, I clearly pulled it out of hot air, not thin air.
and obfuscating what Lupica wrote.
Lupica is doing the obfuscating, not I.
Look, we all have an agenda.
Absolutely.
Undoubtedly.
But this article is based on a commonsense viewpoint. In fact Lupica even gave Rudy a few half-baked kudos.
Not really. The article argues that Giuliani's supporters are only interested in the 9/11 aspect of the story, than the 9/11 response was the only thing he got even partially right, and that working in the private sector for the past 5 years should somehow disqualify him from serious consideration.
Lupica might have his own reasons for writing this article.
He sure does. He despises Giuliani with the irrational passion only a Boston liberal can muster.
But for the most part, he did a good job.
No he did a terrible job - the fact that he had to lie and distort to make his point proves it.
That is why you're so upset with me posting it. The truth hurts. Sorry. Grow some thicker skin.
Your collusion with Lupica's dishonesty doesn't upset me - it disappoints me. Your insistence on calling lies the truth perplexes me.
The GOP needs a conservative at the top of the ticket in 2008. Not a liberal.
Of course. Giuliani is a liberal and should never be the GOP candidate for President.
But it is still immoral to lie about him.
And it is a bad idea to alienate his supporters since he would be an effective cabinet member in the right department.
um. How come you just asked yourself that?
Just bizarre.
Newt is no more of a "political player" than Giuliani has been.
He certainly hasn't had as high a campaign profile as Giuliani has, and he has done the same things Giuliani has done - written a book, appeared on talk shows, given lecture tours, etc.
Otherwise, he's just been working for grant moeny at a think tank.
Of course, since you agree with him more than you do with Giuliani, he's a "player" in your mind while Giuliani isn't.
That is the main thrust of Lupica's article.
No, the main thrust iof Lupica's article is that all Giuliani can run on is his response on 9/11 and that he brings nothing else to the table.
You like talking in this bogus, pretending-to-be-a-dad way.
It's boring.
Lupica's article is crap, supported by lies and distortions.
You like it the article solely because it criticizes Giuliani, however lamely.
That's not going to convince anyone.
My first thought on that is that McCain might very well kill a lot more terrorists than W has, but those who survive or get captured would be fairly treated. I'm just a little tongue in cheek here, but my opinion is that McCain is "traditional" when it comes to fighting war, meaning that he's more like a "bomb the hell out of 'em" Harry Truman type.
Most of Rudy`s supporters I've run into on FR have made his so-called 9-11 leadership the big issue. A few FReepers post some facts about Giuliani's record, but most of that ignores his final record as Mayor. My reply to you containing the facts as posted by the Manhattan Institiute makes the case against Rudy being some fiscal cosnervative. He is not. Rudy is a social and fiscal liberal.
>>>>Giuliani is a liberal and should never be the GOP candidate for President.
That is my point.
People can ignore the facts about Rudy all they want. Come primary season conseravtives will not be ignoring Rudy`s liberal record. Period. Conservatives will not vote for Rudy. I don't care about Mike Lupica. This article nails Rudy Giuliani, fairly, honestly and ethically. Even a liberal clock is right twice a day.
I pointed out the flaws in the MI analysis. You failed to respond.
This article nails Rudy Giuliani, fairly, honestly and ethically.
Lying isn't fair, honest or ethical.
Of course, Lupica has absolutely no idea what any of those concepts mean. You, however, should. Hence my disappointment.
Bizarre! LOL You're the one living in the twilight zone. Five years of political inactivity, versus Rudy`s coming out party three months ago, is not a valid comparison. Nice try, no dice. And Rudy the liberal campaigning for Arnold the liberal, is not surprising at all. It speaks to what Rudy is all about. Liberalism!
>>>>You like it the article solely because it criticizes Giuliani, however lamely.
LOL I enjoyed reading the article and wanted share it with my fellow conseravtive FReepers. Lupica's article hits the mark and that has sent you bouncing off the wall. I suggest you come to face the facts about Rudy and stop making excuses for him. Someone could easily conclude you support his efforts to be the GOP nominee. In fact, that is the impression you're giving me.
The MI supported Rudy during his time in office. They told the story of his fiscal liberalism as Mayor. Nuff said. All you keep doing is making excuses for Rudy because you hate Lupica. Grow up. LOL
Your definition of political inactivity seems to vary depending on whether you like or dislike the person discussed.
Someone could easily conclude you support his efforts to be the GOP nominee.
If they were unable to read.
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.