Posted on 02/13/2007 10:25:55 AM PST by NormsRevenge
New York City before Rudy was an aging courtesan. Visiting New York City was a trip to a third-world country that had become so by choice.
Times-Square was disgusting . . . full of the sort of raunchy shops that the morally stunted think are adult. Much of the city smelled of urine and I could hear gun shots in the distance walking back to my rooms . . . not once but often in my short trips to pre-Rudy New York.
It was obvious why people stayed in New York City, even loved her, but it was a dying, even fetid, beauty . . . and I was sorry to be too late to fall for her. I remember thinking, “She must have been something once.”
When I visited New York City post-Rudy, I could not believe the difference. Times-Square was fun again . . . and the entire City was cleaner, vibrant, and was young. . . nor was the change cosmetic surgery, because the City has continued to be vibrant long after Rudy left.
Obviously, Giuliani had not been responsible for all this miracle, but leaders deserve credit and Giuliani led by making the tough decisions. He led and the results were good for traditionalists. He made the City better for families, of all colors, and the voters have never looked back.
On the day of 9/11 and the immediate after-math, Rudy Giuliani was masterful and he has been sound on the War . . . the single most important issue of our time.
The Mayor is smart, a great speaker, and will be able to raise buckets of money. He can also win by putting many blue states in play.
Rudy is no Lincoln Chafee . . . he is the sort of “left-of-center” Republican I personally admire . . . up to a point.
Despite this, I certainly will not vote for Rudy Giuliani in the primaries and I am not sure I could do it in the general election. My presidential vote just might stay at home (the Republic will survive!).
Why?
First, New York City is not the United States . . . as shocking as this news might be to my friends who live in the Big Apple. The brash and by-the-throat style that worked well in the tabloid consuming subways is not the proper style for the White House . . .
In ancient times, when Rome was in a mess, they would call in a strong man . . . a Roman dictator to straighten out the problems before sending him home. New York City was rotting in the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off . . . the economy is sound and the War is still winnable.
Giuliani is an ambitious man, all men who run for the Presidency are ambitious men, but his is the sort of raw ambition that does not sit well with me so close to power in war time. He wants to be president too openly . . . to much. Rudy Giuliani does not have the personality to lead the whole nation. I don’t think he would wear well and bluntly I fear such ambition untempered by any ideology or religion so close to power.
Second, Rudy Giuliani has a philosophy in his personal life that is antithetical to the American tradition. Giuliani has secular-elite morality . . . more libertine than conservative. Can traditionalists trust his basic impulses?
What do I mean? Nobody can anticipate the challenges a President will face . . . remember 9/11 and George Bush. Gay marriage was not the issue it became in 2000. How will a man react to new challenges? His personal life philosophy is a good measure.
Rudy Giuliani’s personal life indicates that in any new challenge his deepest predispositions will be hostile to traditionalists.
When he does not need our votes, he will forget us utterly. He has no friends in our camp or memories that can stir him to sympathy with our point of view.
A comparison with another blue-state Republican might help make what I am saying plain.
Mitt Romney is a Republican who has often taken “wrong positions” on important issues. . . changed his mind . . . and grown as all statesmen do. I don’t agree with him on all the “issues.” This I know about Romney: he has friends who are very conservative, family who is very conservative, and is a traditionalist in his religious view of the world. His deepest and first impulse will be to understand the American tradition . . . not to innovate.
Given the quick changes that happen in American politics, a man’s fundamental view of the world (secular/progressive or traditionalist/Burkean) is more important to me than the way he answers issues.
Romney disappointed “liberal Republicans” in Massachusetts by governing as a conservative . . . he did not mean to deceive in his answers to the overly tight questions of a campaign . . . it is just the actual demands of office are never like the neat check boxes of campaign position lists. (”Are you for legal abortion?” told us nothing of what Romney would do about stem cells.)
I don’t trust Giuliani to be our friend when the new issues arise . . . as they surely will.
Finally, Giuliani is on the side of what the blessed Pope John Paul the Great called the “culture of death.” As a secularist (whatever his claimed religion), he views life and death as in the hands of men. Instead of our right to life being secured by God as our Declaration of Independence says, he would negotiate it or leave it to the whims of Courts. Rudy Giuliani will not even pretend to be in favor of traditional American views on the sanctity of life . . . and if a politician will not even pander on an issue, you know he means it . . . really means it.
Rudy Giuliani would be the first open culture-of-death candidate to receive the Republican nomination since the Reagan Revolution. He would shatter the pro-life Republican presidential monolith that provided key margins in so many states.
Against another pro-culture-of-death candidate (like Hilary!) perhaps Rudy Giuliani would get my vote as the lesser of two evils, but without enthusiasm and with little support.
Or I might stay at home, waste my vote on a protest candidate, and wait for better days.
The fact that a Republican such as I (in a family Republican since Lincoln) would consider this . . . is a bad sign.
The realistic candidates for President on the Republican side at the moment are Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. Only these three have the money, broad support, and chance of winning to make it all the way . . . unless someone else shows up or one of them falters there is simply not room in the media mind for more than three candidates.
McCain is faltering . . . aging before our eyes and struggling to raise money. I know of nobody who wants him . . . and his polling may simply be name recognition. I think him the most likely to vanish in a puff of smoke.
If he fades, then who? Nobody has the money to fill the gap . . . or the charisma. I challenge anyone to name an electable Republican with money raising prowess who in now in the race outside of the Big Three.
Newt? Get real. Democrats might as well nominate Ted Kennedy.
Newt may be popular with some Republicans, but my wife turns off the television any time he appears. She really, really dislikes him. If you cannot carry Hope’s vote, then you cannot win!
Giuliani has much dirty linen, but the media likes his kind of secret and will protect him (as it can) the way it protected Clinton. He will be a player to the end.
Romney? He is far and away the best of the three . . . and it may be coming down to voting for the traditionalist of the heart who swears he has learned some things over time over two men (Giuliani and McCain) who lack the temperament to be in the White House.
What people don't see is the very seedbed that gave us the framework for this Republic is itself being poisoned by the kind of secularism that produces a very different flavor of society. People don't make the connection between God's blessing and a godly nation, between iniquity and bondage.
Hi, typically I ping people by memory, according to my best recollection of who may be interested. This is my first awareness of your position on this topic and I'll try to carefully respect that.
Cheers.
Look at the dates of those cases. Show me one case within 100 years of the enactment of the Constitution that makes treason a specific intent crime. The Constitution itself clearly makes no such requirement.
All the cases you cite are post-WWII, and since WWII treason has become nothing more than a word with no meaning. People commit it all the time and there is no consequence. Look at Jane Fonda. She should have long ago been executed, but nobody even bothered to charge her.
P-M, key observation.
All: ping to 123 for any comment?
I'm not voting for Guliani, but to imply that NYC is better under that dictator Bloomberg is ridiculous.
There is another term that is appropriate....it is called "quit the field."
It means "admit defeat."
Is "defeat" the same as surrender? Not exactly, but it is just as devastating.
When our folks talk about "redeploying," that is double-speak for "quitting the field." Redeployment is actually simply the return from the field, and it applies as much to a training exercise as to a live engagement. It does not address the nature of the departure from the field.
There is no doubt that a departure at this point is admitting defeat.
Let's pretend for a moment that they were attacking the "Great Satan" for religious, geo-political aspirations prior to 9/11. Do you think those aspirations have been fulfilled? If they have, then the attacks will cease.
If they have not, then "admitting defeat" will play into those religious geo-political aspirations.
The Constitution itself clearly makes no such requirement.
Your point being? The Constitution is the foundation of the law, not the end of it. The Constitution does not create the offense of treason; instead, it only restricts the definition (because of the abuses of the British Crown).
since WWII treason has become nothing more than a word with no meaning.
Treason prosecutions were rare, even before WWII. There have been only about 40 prosecutions for treason in the US ever. BTW, one of those 40 is Adam Yahiye Gadahn (aka "Azzam the American"), indicted Oct. 11, 2006.
What the democrats are talking about is not redeploying, but giving up and going home. Unless we are simply changing fronts, then to redeploy is to surrender. You are surrendering the Real Estate that you have captured. You are leaving it to your enemies to sack and pillage while you high tail it to the hills.
If that is our future in Iraq, then we have no future here at home. We made a committment, we took the ground and 3000 men and women have given their lives in that pursuit. To surrender the ground is to surrender the fight. If we leave without stabilizing the country or eliminating all the bad guys, then we will be surrendering. We can call it redploying or a tactical retreat or quitting the field or whatever, but the practical effect is surrender and the history books will call it that.
That's Merriam-Webster's definition of demagogue.
It is not Rush Limbaugh for a variety of reasons.
1. Limbaugh is extremely OPEN about being a Conservative Republican apologist, commentator. He regularly points out that he's not a news anchor, and that he's giving his take on things.
2. While he has occasionally been mistaken, he does not put out false claims, because it would kill his show. There are too many closely checking his facts for that to be possible.
3. Rush Limbaugh is not interested in political office. I could make a case that he's actually more effective when his conservatives are OUT of power.
4. As a soldier in Germany in the late 90's, we were fed a steady diet of AFN (Armed Forces Network) News. It was a mix of feeds from all of the major alphabet networks. They started carrying one hour of Rush in the evening about 8 pm. Honestly, Jude, it was the only non-liberal information and take on things that we had.
And that's what I'd call Limbaugh.....a conservative commentator. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Constitution defines the Crime of Treason. Specific intent is not required:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
He utilizes passions, prejudices, and logical fallacies to gain influence. He, frankly, reminds me of Father Coughlin.
I have already agreed with the above. It is admitting defeat.
Admitting defeat, however, is not NECESSARILY surrender. Sometimes it is. Surrender is when a defeated enemy makes himself and his forces subject to that victorious enemy.
Dunkirk, for example, was an admission of defeat, a quitting the field. It was, however, not a surrender. Had the British Army surrendered, Europe would be speaking German.
That defeat was extremely hard to recover from, though. It was some 4 years later before they were able to return to the place of their defeat.
That will be the result of our admitting defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda will establish a base in the Mid-East. They will gain access to huge oil reserves and petro-dollars. They will stretch their dreamed-of caliphate from Algeria to Indonesia, they will acquire nuclear weaponry, and they will dwarf the threat that the Soviets used to pose to freedom. They will be the unleashing of the angels bound in the Euphrates.
I totally disagree. He is a conservative commentator, he has no more "power" than any other news guy, and he's very open about his positions.
Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is in danger of seizing power in the US is smokin too much a da ganga.
The stars will fall from the sky before that ever happens.
No problem.
Duncan Hunter is a blue state republican!
From a very conservative district.
The last time a Congressman was elected President, his name was Lincoln. He's not electable. His views are too extreme. Only on FR does he have any support. He will not win any significant support in the primaries.
His views are too extreme. Only on FR does he have any support. He will not win any significant support in the primaries.
--
so he is not worth wasting any effort for, Is that your take? just want you on record as being supportive of the country moving further to the left. how say ye?
"However if you are a registered Republican and usually vote Republican then your sit-out would be a vote for Hillary."
I have voted the last 28 yrs for prolife republicans. I have never voted for a pro-abortion republican and I don't intend to start now. The answer to my own question is NO!
I'm tired of all the same arguements, so you want Hillary Clinton to be president!! If the republicans are so damned stupid as to put Rudy Giulianni on the ticket you get what you deserve. It will be your fault, not mine!
Not going to take the bait of the supporter of a fringe candidate.
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.