Posted on 02/11/2007 12:44:55 PM PST by areafiftyone
Rudy Giuliani Has Got What You Need
Posted by Mark Radulich on 02.15.2007
It won't matter what Giuliani thinks about about abortion if Iran drops a bomb on us. And quite frankly I'm much less worried about Islamic terrorism with President Giuliani in charge than President Brownback or Clinton.
The story right now being bandied about by the mainstream media and the talk radio world is that the GOP has no front-runner for the 2008 Presidential election or that the front-runners are not exactly inspiring anyone. The three most prominent names right now are obviously John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
The reason these three contenders fail to ignite the imagination of their base is not because they aren't competent leaders or even forces to be reckoned with in terms of security but rather that they fail to meet the social conservative litmus test of Republican base. They are not anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion or anti-gun control enough for many social conservative voters to trust and therefore many just aren't excited enough to stand behind these while either Clinton or Obama make their way to the White House.
As I've said before, social voting in the age of world wide Islamic terrorism befuddles me. I suppose President Brownback could try and outlaw abortion but a world free of legally murdered babies doesn't stop Mohammed from blowing himself up outside of your local Starbucks. President Huckabee could save the institution of marriage for the next thousand years by sending all homosexuals to France forever but that has nothing to do with Iran or North Korea and the likely possibility that they will facilitate one of many terrorist groups getting their hands on a nuclear device. Stopping stem-cell research doesn't drop the bomb from being dropped on Israel or us for that matter so I fail to see how social vote should supercede security and foreign policy votes.
Let me explain it this way; You have what's called Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs, which is a theory in psychology that Abraham Maslow proposed in 1943 that states as humans meet 'basic needs', they seek to satisfy successively 'higher needs' that occupy a set hierarchy. Maslow wrote that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy." In other words, if your most basic needs weren't met, then your emotional, spiritual and psychological growth would be stunted or crippled.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is typically represented as a pyramid with the more primitive needs at the bottom and consisting of five levels: the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with physiological needs, while the top level is termed growth needs associated with psychological needs. While deficiency needs must be met, growth needs are continually shaping behavior. The basic concept is that the higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus once all the needs that are lower down in the pyramid are mainly or entirely satisfied. Growth forces create upward movement in the hierarchy, whereas regressive forces push prepotent needs further down the hierarchy.
As you can see from the pyramid shown above, the first two levels of need are physical survival needs such as water, food, sleep, warmth and exercise and safety and security needs. The other more ethereal needs don't come into play until those two levels have been met.
Now let's look at the candidate most likely to be beat Hillary Clinton should the Democrats opt to give her a run at the White House, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Aside from the fact that he's the most like GOP candidate to actually win NY since probably the Reagan administration, Giuliani's record stacks up pretty well against the first two levels Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
As Mayor of the largest city and arguably the most important city in America, Giuliani had to manage the city public works efficiently and make the city livable for its residents. According to his campaign website, "Rudy Giuliani cut more taxes than any Mayor in New York City history, reducing or eliminating 23 city taxes, saving individuals and businesses a cumulative $8 billion, while reducing New Yorkers' tax burden by nearly 20%. By the end of Giuliani's term in office, New Yorkers enjoyed their lowest tax burden in three decades, along with the creation of approximately 425,000 new private sector jobs… When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could, according to a CNN/Time poll. Drawing upon the "Broken Windows" theory of policing, the City cracked down on quality of life crimes such as aggressive panhandling, graffiti, and drug dealing, transforming places like Times Square into safe destinations for theatergoers and sightseers. The City launched an aggressive initiative against drunk drivers, and implemented a ban on sex shops within 500 feet of residential neighborhoods, churches, and schools. In addition, Mayor Giuliani acquired 2,038 acres of new parkland – the most in more than 50 years."
The former mayor also has a solid record on protecting children and increasing security in a city that once rivaled other big cities in rapes and murders. "Under Rudy Giuliani's leadership as Mayor of the nation's largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. According to the FBI, New York was transformed from the crime capital of the country into the Safest Large City in America, while becoming the global model for excellence in law enforcement. Rudy Giuliani believes that "Public safety is a fundamental civil right…when you reduce crime, you restore people's freedom."
Acting on his belief that "One of the most important responsibilities of government is to protect children from harm," Mayor Giuliani worked to create the city's first independent child welfare agency, reducing the foster care population by promoting a record number of adoptions, and doubling child support collections by cracking down on deadbeat dads, and implementing a program called HealthStat, which identified unenrolled children eligible for health insurance."
Giuliani obviously will be strong on domestic law and order issues as well as quality of life issue but the big question will be whether or not he has the gumption to fight Islamic terrorism worldwide. If his speeches are to believed and his actions concerning an anti-Semitic Saudi and a very large check are any indication then I believe Giuliani will be the kind of terror warrior many of us thought Bush would become.
The world has become too small to be so caught up in social policy voting. No matter who you vote in, either very liberal or very conservative, the fact of the matter is that abortion will never be prohibited in our lifetime but the likelihood of Iran or China starting a nuclear war is and the smart people of this country should be thinking about what kind of leader they want to be in charge when that does happen. When your most basic needs are being threatened and your livelihood is under attack from foreign invaders, who do you think is going to protect you and fight the enemy, Giuliani or Hillary Clinton? At the end of the day, social votes aside, Giuliani has got what every American needs – the ability to lead and manage this nation while fighting the enemy abroad.
I remember those old threads well. That's what I try to point out to people. George W. Bush was not popular around here until the general election.
There have been major disagreements about these things over the years. But things work themselves out! :)
Duncan Hunter knows a heck of a lot more about the inner workings of the military and the Pentagon than Giuliani does. There is no doubt about that.
In 1988, Bill Clinton was chosen to deliver the introduction to the presidential nominee. This is a VERY important spot; one much coveted by "rising stars" of each party. Unfortunately for Bill and more so, for Dukakis, he rambled on and on, so that the once scheduled PRIME TIME appearance of the nominee, was pushed off into a time when most people had long ago shut off the set and gone to bed.
In order to "save" himself, burnish a now tarnished reputation, and promote himself and Dukakis, Bill went on every late night show and every talk show he could badger his way on. He turned on the charm and became *gasp* WELL KNOWN!
DESIGNING WOMEN, a very well watched show, was written by two of the Clintons best friends. Such FOBs, that they designed and produced that dreadful "MAN FROM HOPE" film, that was constantly shown during Bill's first run for the presidency. Over the years, Clinton's name was dropped into that show's scripts, talking him up and saying what wonderful things he had and was doing for Arkansas.
Unlike Duncan, Bill had tons of political backing and BIG MONEY MEN backers.
Baggage? Is an ongoing investigation, which is being sort of hushed up, but can be found on line, if you look for it, investigation of Hunter and two of his staff, linking him with Cunningham and Duke's corrupt practices, now just a "carryon"? And this may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Hunter can claim that he is as conservative as anyone could possibly be; however, he is a terrible speaker...wooden, monotone, ( unless he is staging a cheesy bash a Toyota product, to a teensy audience in the House ) and utterly lacking in charisma. He has NO big gun political backing, has no BIG MONEY backing and isn't about to get any, and has yet to even look into hiring a big time team.
And his protectionism is going to keep him from getting the backing he needs, but which he has already fore sworn, claiming that he doesn't need the kind of money that he needs.
By all means, support him, if you want to, but try to face reality. Unless all of his supporters on FR are many times over multimillionaires/billionaires and have friends who are and who are willing to support his candidacy with great gobs of money, time, and effort, his primary run is going nowhere.
Yesterday someone mentioned Duncan Hunter and that the Department of Justice was investigating him for involvement in conspiracy or bribery. No one seemed to know for sure. Was it him or were they mistaken and it was someone else?
Never mind TommyDale, I see nopardons read my mind! Thanks for the information!
I'm still watching Romney, but he's not wearing well.
I don't like Hagel or Huckabee at all.
I am completely against Hunter's trade stance, the investigations into him are disturbing, anyone wanting to run for president, who makes such a stupid, amateurish statement about how he doesn't need 100 million, isn't ready for prime time, 26 years in the House and still an unknown, with few of his colleagues liking or supporting him is NOT conducive to a president who could get anything done, and he's a TERRIBLE speaker.
Tancredo and Ron Paul are KOOKS!
Newt isn't running.
Have I left anyone out?
Rudy has great leadership ability. He is staunchly for fighting the WOT and is not going to cave to any dictator of the MSM or Dems. He is and has a record of cutting taxes, cutting the size of government, he cut welfare rolls by 60%, pushed adoptions and made it easier for people to adopt/unwed mothers to give their unwanted child up for adoption, rather than abort them. He threatened to defund a major museum, unless they removed an obscene, blasphemous piece of "art".
There's much more, but I really doubt you care.
That is undoubtedly true.
I'm not sure that equates to being a better Commander-in-Chief. The President doesn't run the military. He hires someone to head it up. Donald Rumsfeld had three years of active duty in the military during peacetime. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense with no military experience.
Were either of them unqualified?
Being an effective Commander-in-Chief requires seeking the advice of able people who offer good advice, and making decisions accordingly. That's what any good executive does. You have a vision of what you'd like to accomplish. You listen to the experts who tell you whether it can be accomplished or not and at what cost or risk.
Expertise in any particular aspect is helpful but not even remotely essential. It's whether you've got the intelligence to weigh dissenting opinions in a rational manner and whether you have a vision.
From the sarcasm of your response I would guess not. I will bet one day you may.
Hunter has baggage, you just don't know about it and those who do, poo poo it.
I hear you're points. I agree. It's early yet though.
Poo poo? WTF is that?
Either use FR's search engine ( though many threads have been deleted ), or use the "way back machine"; a link to which has been posted to FR, at least 50 times lately.
What would you think of a Rudy/Haley ticket?
Both Canada and Mexico resent the fact that we dominate them now simply because of our economic strength. They don't want a union with us which further diminish them, and the thought of them conquering us is falling down laughing ridiculous.
I'm not even sure how we got on this topic, but I'm through discussing it on this thread.
Rudy Giuliani doesn't have a reputation for surrounding himself with the best associates. Just look at Bernie Kerik.
No, there are 8 million people in the five boroughs that comprise N.Y.C.; alone! There are far more people in the tri-state area.
"When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it."
Crickets.
If he becomes a serious contender, you can be sure we'll hear about it. He knew he was underpaying his taxes on his Alpine house. His ties to Cunningham are still under DOJ investigation.
It doesn't matter to me, because I can't envision a scenario where he becomes a serious Republican nominee contender.
There are only four candidates that possibly could contend: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and maybe Gingrich.
Everyone else is a vanity candidate.
Every single FREEPER should read it.....NOW and see what was said and by WHOM, back then.
Maybe you need to go learn how politics works in America. Just a thought. :-)
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.