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.
I think Rudy's impulses on 'new' issues of statecraft will be just fine
You need to be in a third party.
President Giuliani would be the end of a certain sort of American "exceptionalism"; the end of a long era of a "City on a Hill" view of Presidential purpose, if we choose Giuliani we would be opting for a very "European" sort of leader, chosen with little concern for his personal life on pragmatic and perhaps even cynical grounds.
Rudy just said that Ronald Reagan was his hero 6-7 times in his speech yesterday, I severly doubt that.
A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.
A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.
I especially enjoyed this part.
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.
NYCity had lots of problems that were unique to the Big Apple alone. But they weren't major social issues that effect the entire nation. 70% of NYCity voters are registered Democrats. They don't give a rats arse about the key social issues. They don't care about stopping abortion, allowing more gun rights, less gay rights or stopping illegals from entering the US. And neither does Rudy.
Rudy did a good job as Mayor by NYCity standards, but cleaning up Times Square, eliminating the squeegee-men, arresting public urinators and catching turnstile jumpers are not the issues that conservative activists will be judging candidates on in the GOP primaries.
Rudy`s political positions on the major social issues will be what conservative activists will be judging him on. And Rudy`s stances on the social issues remain in lockstep with liberal Democrats like Hillary Clitnon, Algore, John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy.
If people want to ignore Rudy`s liberal record and his lifetime of support for liberal causes, they're free to do so. But it won't stop me from speaking out about how wrong Rudy is for America. In the end, I'm confident conservatives wil reject Rudy as the GOP nominee.
IMHO the jury is still out as to whether or not we'll survive the damage done in the first 8 yrs. that a Clinton held the Presidency.
Comments?
"Nor is it impossible to have a Republican nominee who can win who isn't a leftist in so many important ways."
Then trot him out. He will by now have the money, name recognition and poll numbers to prove how numerous and powerful conservatives are.
Or could it be conservative sentiments are spread all around, a little here and a little there?
Not trying to a smart-aleck - I honestly don't know how to read that.
Do you mean:
1) Rudy is lying, Reagan is not his hero.
2) My view in the post you are responding to in incorrect: Reagan is Rudy's hero, and Rudy will try to be another Reagan.
3) Something else?
I think this guy's gonna turn out just like Arnold.
I have to say, economically, I'd rather spend the first few years of my upcoming marriage and probable future children under Rudy than Hillary. I'd rather have a solid job and decent economy to support my family under, than a bunch of tax increases and Marxism threatening our well-being as Hillary tries to make us her dependent subjects.
Ah, yes...that's what we need...a leader with more nuance.
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.
Better we elect a wimp with no spine.
He wants to be president too openly . . . to much. Rudy Giuliani does not have the personality to lead the whole nation.
Can't have a president with too much ambiion either. Much better to elect a "can't we just all get along" candidate.
I'm not saying I will vote for Rudy, but some of the author's reasoning is lame.
So if I don't vote for Hillary Clinton, is that the same as a vote for Rudy? Even though I would never vote for either?
Interesting this liberal Republican is so enamored of Romney - another politician who is more than willing to believe anything he thinks will make him more electable rather than Giuliani.
He's right about McCain.
Hopefully he will be right about Giuliani and wrong about Romney.
All three of these "leaders" have been picked by the leftwing media as the candidates of choice and supported by the Mehlmans and Roves and Eisenbergs and other leftists who created the 2006 catastrophe.
I'm sorry his wife finds Gingrich so repugnant. I'm not impressed by his geneology. Nor does his position as a university professor move me - they live in their own worlds separate from the realtiy of mere mortals.
Unless someone is nominated who will appeal to the Republican core - someone who opposes the invasion of America by illegal aliens, someone who recognizes Constitutional rights - including the Second Amendment, someone who believes killing unborn babies is unacceptabel in a civilized society, someone who adheres to traditional American values of right and wrong, someone who knows that the way to fight a war is to win it, kill the enemy and then get out, the Republican base will do what it did so well in 2006 - sit home or vote third party.
Only Hunter or Gingrich can possibly move the masses of Republicans and just patriotic independent Americans to vote for a Republican.
My thoughts exactly.
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.