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.
Then one of the two parties needs to put forth a candidate that doesn't repel a large segment of voters. The GOP runs Rudy for president at their own peril.
Not according to those who write the history books. Clinton is not responsible for anything that happened after Jan 19, 2001.
And Hillary! doesn't want the job unless we force her into it, right.
Hogwash! Not when both parties choose to run a liberal candidate. You're deadwrong. I believe every American has a duty to vote. An obligation to vote. But NOT voting for a liberal like Rudy, should he somehow get the nomination, would be a matter of personal conscience and integrity of principle. Something most conservatives learn by the time we become of voting age. With some folks it takes longer. With you, looks like it might never happen.
Btw, I've been a loyal Republican my whole life. I expect to be voting for a conservative in the Colorado primary and the general election. That means Rudy won't even be an issue come election day 2008.
I'd have a lot more trouble voting for Romney than I would for Rudy. While it would seem that Romney is more conservative than Giuliani, his record in office isn't.
Giuliani said last week "I'm against abortion but I must uphold Roe v. Wade." This is the classic pro-abortion political statement.
NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion savages clapped their hands with glee knowing that Rudy is STILL on their side, and has been from the very beginning.
From the FEC database: 04/24/1999 Donations
NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC
NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999.
NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
NARAL gave $1000---4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.
Clearly, NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, even more than NARAL trusted Hillary.
Rudy was the honored guest speaker and made The Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Luncheon few years back.
In a CNN interview, Giuliani indicated he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." Giuliani also indicated he would have upheld President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.
"Maybe" Rudy offered women "other options" to abortion but Rudy told Phil Donahue he'd give his daughter the money for an abortion (to get rid of his own grandchild).
Whatever Rudy may "say" about abortion is merely b/c he discovered he needs pro-lifers to make a showing.
Rudy is joined at the hip to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-on-demand with the govt picking up the tab crowd. No way will they allow Rudy to move anywhere but forward to expand abortion to unknown dimensions. Partial birth abortion? If you elect Rudy, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.
Pro-lifers should treat Rudy EXACTLY as he treats unborn children------as a disposable nuisance.
The author told you why you should care what he thinks. Did you actually read what he wrote? If so, why not respond with why you agree or disagree with his conclusions?
For a professor, he sure does make some bonehead grammatical mistakes.
Honestly, our Republic would be safer under 4 terrible years of Hillary than with Rudy at the helm.
Was he lying in his interview with Phil Dohahue or is he lying now? Either way, Rudy Giuliani is lying about how he feels about abortion. The whole world knows it.
His bio says he is from Biola U.,, my eyesight , being what it is these days, thought it said Ebola U. at first glance. not an academic institution to sneeze at. 8-]
Niether is Bum F Iowa.
Stupid.
---"Give Hillary 2 SCOTUS picks and those words would be ashes in your mouth..."---
Actually, give Hillary OR Rudy 2 SCOTUS picks and we're screwed for a long time.
You don't deserve the right, then. Pouting at unpleasant compromises and uninspiring options is simply juvenile. Mature adults have to make choices between less-than-ideal choices all the time.
Suck it up and vote! Far better men and women than you or me sacrificed their very lives to give you that opportunity.
ROFL
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.