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.
Reynolds is dead on the spot.
DOn't think for a second that Shilary will be out in one term. With the media propaganda, she'll make it eight just like her husband.
On the only issue that really matters, Giuliani and Clinton are worlds apart.
If Giuliani is the Republican candidate and Hillary is the Democrat candidate then not voting for Giuliani is a vote for Hillary. So if you don't like Rudy's personal position on abortion you will love Hillary's position. This is just stupidity.
Ray Nagin, also mayor of a major US city forced to endure extreme trials.
I don't want Ray as President either.
AMEN!!!!!
John Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Biola University.
"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!).
That's as far as I could get reading this idiot's article.
Anyone who says they'll stay home isn't intelligent or American enough to warrant my time.
BIOLA University?
"Because he is writing what a good many are thinking concerning Rino Rudy."
And thank God more people aren't thinking that way.
..the Religious Right (of which I consider myself a part) cannot be pushed into supporting anything or anyone who is against 75-80% of what they believe.
I am reminded of the falling out James Dobson had with Bill Bennett a few years ago over Colin Powell.
There was panic in some Republican circles, promoting Powell as the only candidate who could win the White House back from the Democrats--he was clearly not a conservative--and we won the election without him.
IMHO pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd Amendment conservatives cannot acquiesce to the Kingdom of Rudy no matter what flavor of Kool-Aid is being offered...
That would cause me to have the blood of Innocent's on my hands.
All for a little break on taxes?
Not this voter!
That would cause me to have the blood of Innocent's on my hands.
Again, when faced with the scenario of "either Giuliani is going to be president or Hillary is" a vote for Giuliani is not an endorsement of his abortion policies, because you are going to have a pro-abortion politician either way. If you got on an airplane and discovered that the pilot was pro-choice, would you demand to be let off the plane?
The analogy fits. If abortion is the ultimate deal breaker for you then you would obviously get off the plane. I am 100% pro-life, but I live and work in NYC. Idiots who throw their vote away to make a futile political statement are going to end up getting me and a lot of other people killed.
"John Mark Reynolds is an idiot. I certainly will not vote for Giuliani in the primary, but if he wins the nomination, then a failure to vote for him is the exact same thing as a vote for Hillary Clinton."
I agree! I also will not vote for Rudy in the primary, but if he wins the nomination I will certainly support him! Reynolds started off saying many positive things about Rudy, so I guess since he wouldn't support Rudy at all, he must have more positive things to say about the Democrat candidates. Staying home is plain dumb!
Thank you. I'm sick of All-Rudy-All-The-Time at FR. We can do better than nominate a RINO for president.
Unfortunately, you are quite incorrect in stating that there is only one issue that maters. Furthermore, when it comes to the most effective strategies in addressing that one issue, Clinton and Rudy both oppose them.
With Obama or Hillary in the White House for 4 years while the Jihadists are trying to destroy our way of life - I am not so sure the Republic would survive.
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.