Rudolph Giuliani?

American Thinker ^ | February 21, 2007 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

Rudolph Giuliani for president?  Please.  There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree. 

I know a little something about Giuliani.  Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City.  And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America's Mayor.  Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart. 

Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm.  Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor.  He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.  

I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage.  Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.   

He's more like the man who will be beaten - and by more than one candidate, mind you.

The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing.  All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn't pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 - he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour - and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention.  And on his list of credits I'll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life. 

This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events.  And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats.  They have an "R" next to their names.

As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the "Gay Pride" parade.  He actively supported "gay rights" and said he was "proud" of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage).  Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is "good and normal." 

Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion" should not be outlawed in NY.  And while he now says he is "personally opposed to abortion," he also once asserted, "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]."  I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.

Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action.  He has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits.  He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."  Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994.  Anyway, enough about that.  You get the idea.

My point is that Giuliani's golfer son has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination.  Allow me to lend this some perspective.

The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and  Barack Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president.   But now let's talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible. 

To the best of my knowledge:

- No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.

- Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination. 

- Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination. 

And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?

What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani.  What is this man thinking?  Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo?  Talk about believing your own press clippings.

The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man's lack of viability.  The obvious answer is that it's an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona.  It's also possible some in the Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009.  Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center.  They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America.  My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.

Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost.  Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing.  But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing.  You miss left far too much to be a contender.

[mkjessup]

[In the continuing saga of why West Virginia is not 'exactly' like other Southern states]

Our Freeper With No Name said:

What does NOT EXACTLY mean to you. Either it is or it isn't.

Surely, you're not that ignorant are you? West Virginia, for all of it's Southern leanings, has generally kept returning it's 'Rat Senators to Washington time after time after time, they have seldom voted for the GOP presidential candidate, and that is in large part due to their being a 'Rat state on federal welfare (and that is due to no fault of the proud citizens of West Virginia, from where my own family hails), and that welfare-state status was and is perpetuated by the likes of Senator Robert KKK Byrdbrain, who has had his name placed on more public buildings and federal largesse than damn near any other politician in history. Senator and former Governor Jay Rockefeller, while paying his own personal dues with his work in the Peace Corps in West Virginia when he first moved there, more or less bought his way into the Governor's Mansion, and his personal fortune coupled with his name recognition is what put him into a Senate seat as well.

THAT is why West Virginia is 'not exactly' like other states of the South, because West Virginia has never been off the federal teat long enough to do what other southern states have been doing for decades, i.e., shifting into the GOP column.

All your babble is wishy-washy - nothing of substance.

I've responded with established fact, you are still responding with hysterics.

[mkjessup]

First of all. It's 'chickie-POO' not 'chickie-Boo.'

It's anything I want it to be.

and second...I am not a diehard Rudy or anyone fan. Rudy was unfairly trashed and I didn't like it.

Indeed.

You were sure carrying Rudy's water for him in the following thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788197/posts?page=40#40

Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.

[Delphinium]

Loved the article, and I totally believe his opinion.

[mkjessup]

Should Republicans support someone who chose the Democrat Mario Cuomo over the candidate of their own Party?
That is an interesting point; it is one of the things about Giuliani that bothers me. His support of Mario Cuomo was reprehensible. I also am bothered by his decision to abandon the Senate race in NY. As I recall, he was undergoing treatment for prostate cancer at the time, though I have wondered if that was a justification on his part. His decision to withdraw left the Republicans scrambling and gave Hillary Clinton a much easier victory, though I think she probably would have won anyway. Finally, his judgment on the Bernard Kerik nomination was pretty bad. I really don't see him as the nominee. I think the press is touting him so relentlessly now because they believe he cannot possibly win the White House; in that respect, he is the media's ideal Republican candidate.

BINGO.

Grace, you win the kewpie doll!

[Delphinium]

the social right has blown it....it is time for the Yankees to take the wheel.

It was not the right that blew it, it was those mostly RINOS, and “the go along to get alongs” that made people go away.

The Republican Party has grown to stand for certain principles and that is what I believe most Americans want. The want real principles, not phony politicians.

[mkjessup]

Uhhh, Nelson's dead.
Duh! He was in politics long before he died and it wasn't in NY!

Still waiting to hear from you regarding where Nelson Rockefeller was

"in politics long before he died and it wasn't in NY!"

[spikeytx86]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

And I have never shied away about talking about his record. I can't explain everything as I am not Giuliani but am always willing to discuss his record on any issue.

[Fawn]

I posted tons of stuff in defense of Rudy. That's what I said. That doesn't mean i'm a die hard fan. I'm telling you twice now....I didn't like the way he was trashed and I stuck for him. You have a problem with understanding context.

[mkjessup]

Your sarcasm and unwillingness to be honest says it all.

For a RudyBot, you've been less than straightforward yourself, and you've been operating on a minimum of knowledge about your candidate, and about political history.

You REFUSE to list Hillary's and Obama's accomplishments.

I've refused nothing. You erected a straw man and you're attempting to play 'Dancing With The Stars' with it.

Go Rudy! They lie and deny at the mention of your name!

That orgasmic shout-out ought to get you at least a week's worth of parking vouchers from RudyBot Central.

Enjoy 'em pal.

[mkjessup]

I posted tons of stuff in defense of Rudy. That's what I said. That doesn't mean i'm a die hard fan. I'm telling you twice now....I didn't like the way he was trashed and I stuck for him. You have a problem with understanding context.

Ok Fawn, I take you at your word.

Who do YOU support for President in '08?

[Fawn]

I have no idea yet.....

[neverdem]

Hate to burst your bubble but at one time or another EVERY republican President has held liberal views on abortion.

Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination.

So WE must ask ourselves is THIS the direction in which we want the GOP to go?

Rudy is the best chance to capture more of the Democrat voter, if that's to whom you wish to appeal.

Have you ever heard of single issue voters? I can think of two off the top of my head. One only votes to protect the unborn. The other only votes because they don't want to become criminalized by unconstitutional legislation, e.g. concerns supposedly protected by the Second Amendment. The left avoided those issues in the last election, Nov. 2006. They won the Congress when many of those voters stayed home.

You can criticize their voting habits as much as you please, but when both parties are contending for the muddy center, while the culture is being yanked to the left by the MSM, what do those folks have to vote for or against? Those voters aren't stupid. Pubbies don't raise taxes. Big deal, they raise fees, fines, surcharges, etc. That's what you get with invertebrate RINOs.

[dirtboy]

You're supposed to ping someone when you post about them. Especially when you launch into a personal attack devoid of facts.

If you can't handle a bit of heat, grow a thicker skin. The year before a primary is full-contact sport on FR, and the Rudy boosters have no problem making unwarranted attacks and insults against the other side. I back my positions up with facts and history. All I hear from your side is a bunch of talking points that has little basis in reality, other than Rudy can harness the GOP money and bull**** machine to ride roughshod over the opposition in the primaries because of the front-loaded primary schedule. So this, by the own statements of Rudy boosters, could well be the only shot prevent a train wreck if Rudy were to win the nomination.

[dirtboy]

It was not the right that blew it, it was those mostly RINOS, and “the go along to get alongs” that made people go away.

Having totaled the bus, they demand a new bus and the keys for that as well.

[Delphinium]

Having totaled the bus, they demand a new bus and the keys for that as well.

And they are trying to twist it by lying, over and over and over that the conservatives did it. They think by telling that lie fast and furiously will get them the key to that new bus.

[presently no screen name]

You still haven't listed the accomplishments of Hillary and Obama. Instead I received lots of childish replies. You cannot back up what your call a 'valid' statement.

Go play with someone else who has more time to baby-sit you.

[Melas]

If you can't handle a bit of heat, grow a thicker skin. The year before a primary is full-contact sport on FR, and the Rudy boosters have no problem making unwarranted attacks and insults against the other side

This idea that politics is a full contact sport, meaning it's ok to act in a juvenile manner and sling insults to and fro, is nonsense. It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

the Rudy boosters have no problem making unwarranted attacks and insults against the other side.

I've originated no personal attacks against anyone based on their support for any candidate. What I've done is minor retaliation at best in pointing out just how low some are now stooping. C'mon, you posted a whole thread as bait, give me a break. You're smart enough to realize how junior high school that is, you just don't care.

All I hear from your side is a bunch of talking points that has little basis in reality, other than Rudy can harness the GOP money and bull**** machine to ride roughshod over the opposition in the primaries because of the front-loaded primary schedule.

Be honest here. Would you be calling it a front loaded primary if your guy was ahead? Would you be calling it the GOP bull---- machine if your guy was ahead? Please, these are thinly veiled rationalizations to explain away your candidate's poor showing and we all know it.

We're not children here, we can truck in the truth without temperment or rationalizations getting in the way.

[dirtboy]

This idea that politics is a full contact sport, meaning it's ok to act in a juvenile manner and sling insults to and fro, is nonsense. It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

I'm not talking about juvenile insults. I am talking about forceful debate. If you want to see Rudy annoited by adoring masses, you won't get that here.

I've originated no personal attacks against anyone based on their support for any candidate. What I've done is minor retaliation at best in pointing out just how low some are now stooping. C'mon, you posted a whole thread as bait, give me a break. You're smart enough to realize how junior high school that is, you just don't care.

That thread is meant to be political humor. A timed-honored tradition in this country. And filled with a fair number of historical observations and facts. As are all my posts on this subject.

Be honest here. Would you be calling it a front loaded primary if your guy was ahead? Would you be calling it the GOP bull---- machine if your guy was ahead?

Yep, because both are true. By any definition, so many primaries have been moved up in the calandar from where they were in 2004 that it clearly is front-loaded. The fact that you even raise that as a counterpoint is absurd. And the money and bull**** machine is a large part of the pro-illegal and pro-big-spending problems in the GOP.

Please, these are thinly veiled rationalizations to explain away your candidate's poor showing and we all know it.

Already shown to be false.

We're not children here,

As he completes his fact-free rant.

we can truck in the truth without temperment or rationalizations getting in the way.

You don't get at the truth by avoiding it.

[madprof98]

I am always amazed at the number of actual leftists on FR who think they are conservatives.

I don't think Rudy is going to get the GOP nomination. If he does, I believe it will mark a transition in the GOP from the conservative Party the Reagan Democrats signed up for into something more like the liberal/libertarian Party that Jim Jeffords represented. Many of us wouldn't want to be involved with a Party like that at all.

But even if Rudy loses the nomination, as I hope he will, I wonder if this won't mark the end of FreeRepublic as we have known it. I thought perhaps that might happen in the acriminous days of the Terri Schiavo controversy, but then, it seemed clear that only a small minority of very vocal posters wanted Terri to die. Now, it seems possible that a majority of posters would like to see the social conservatives die . . . or at least find themselves another Party and another forum as well.

[dirtboy]

And they are trying to twist it by lying, over and over and over that the conservatives did it.

We were the ones yelling at them to hit the damn brakes. Instead, they turned leftward right into the path of oncoming Democrats.