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.
No, it doesn't fit. An airplane pilot does not make decisions that affect millions of unborn children.
Voting for Guiliani WOULD be throwing my vote away.
That really doesn't enter the equation.
Just in my world view, accepting 'gain' by voting for a supporter of Abortion, isn't going to balance a foul deed.
I will vote third party rather than voting for a abortion supporting, gun grabber who won't defend the borders. I'm hardly a rich man, but I did find $X,XXX for the Swiftboat folks.
I never perceived Dubya as a conservative, but he made the right noises on the issue of abortion.
And frankly, Rudy doesn't have a chance in He77 anyway, I believe the establishment (both R & D) wants Hillary.
If both major candidates are pro-abortion, you are not endorsing abortion. As third party candidates are not viable, you have esssentially not voted. That's just stupid.
That all depends. If you are a registered Democrat and usually vote Democrat - then yes, a sit-out-the-election would be the same as a vote for Rudy.
However if you are a registered Republican and usually vote Republican then your sit-out would be a vote for Hillary.
It's just like a algebra equation - you can't affect one side of the equation without affecting the other side. Removing a vote from one side has exactly the same result as adding a vote to the other side.
It would be different if we had a multi-party system, but then again if pigs had wings they could fly.
I'll never vote for a gun-banner. Period.
George Bush claims to be pro-life. Aside from PBA, which Giuliani also opposes, how have the abortion laws changed during his presidency?
Correct answer: Not one bit.
I will not vote for any gun-grabber. This is non-negotiable.
Well within the realm of possibilities. I did vote for and donate to Bush I & II.
First of all, Rudy does not oppose PBA. Laws may not have changed but many policies have, and his legacy will be Roberts and Alito. And don't even try to sell me that Rudy will appoint judges like that. I don't buy it.
Hillary Clinton would give us Ruth Ginsberg clones. We might end up with O'Connor types with Giuliani. Do you understand the difference?
If you are someone who normally votes Democrat, then yes. Otherwise, no. The symmetry in your question doesn't hold.
"If abortion is the ultimate deal breaker for you then you would obviously get off the plane."
I will consider Guiliani for just this reason - we are in a situation where we need the kind of man who cleaned up Times Square to lead the War on Terror.
I'm also strongly considering Romney. Both Romney and Guiliani are Blue State Republicans - precisely what are needed after the politics of polarization that Bush and Rove have brought us.
Giuliani and Romney are only on my general election list.
I'll not support them in the primaries UNLESS they make some Major, PUBLIC RECANTATIONS backed up with irrevocable, certifiable promises.
Um, the "politics of polarization" were not brought to us by Bush and Rove, they were brought to us by disloyal and power mad democrats and a european limosine liberal media who would sell this country down the river if it meant they could stay in power for another four years.
Bush extended an olive branch from the first day of his presidency. The democrats decided that they would rather bite off the hand than accept the branch.
When are you getting out of school? Every day you've been there you've become a little more liberal. I dare say that when I was your age, I was a full blown socialist. Jimmy Carter cured me of that disease and Ronald Reagan vaccinated me from any possibility of a relapse.
The democrats don't want unity, they want power. And they will do anything to get it. Even if it means selling out our posterity and surrendering to those who wish to destroy us.
Then trot him out. He will by now have the money, name recognition and poll numbers to prove how numerous and powerful conservatives are.
I'm not saying the Democrats had clean hands. Heck, Clinton invented the War Room strategy that utilized these polarizing techniques - but the Rove approach has been to polarize and turn out the base. It worked in 2000, 2004, but failed in 2006.
Every day you've been there you've become a little more liberal.
Not entirely true. Remember - criticism of the White House is not liberalism per se - especially not as regards the war.
The democrats don't want unity, they want power. And they will do anything to get it. Even if it means selling out our posterity and surrendering to those who wish to destroy us.
Take out "surrendering," and it's 100% true of many Democrats and Republicans. Leave "surrendering" in, and it is false for both. I have yet to hear even Murtha suggest "surrender." (Instead, he suggests a withdrawal from Iraq. That may well result in defeat, but a tactical retreat is never surrender. "Surrender" is the talking point of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh.)
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.