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.

[arthurus]

they believe he cannot possibly win the White House

And if he does manage to slip through, well, it will not be too much different from a Democrat win, not even with personnel. I expect Mr. Giuliani to do some sort of "fusion" thing once in office.

[mkjessup]

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.

I'll take that to mean that you have no idea where Nelson Rockefeller was 'involved in politics' outside of New York long before he died. Here are some easy clues for you: Nelson Rockefeller served as Governor of New York, spent money like it was water, always sought to raise taxes, he was an unabashed FDR-style 'New Dealer', and so far as political office, the only political office he served in after being Governor of New York, was the appointed Vice President of Gerald R. Ford. That's it, and that was enough. So if you have knowledge of some other mystery state Nelson was running outside of New York and the VP slot, by all means: enlighten us all.

Now if you are so focused on the 'accomplishments' of Hillary and Obama you could Google them yourself. My comparing your idol Rudy Guiliani with Hillary and Obama in the way of experience and accomplishments should have been crystal clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ; all three of those individuals do NOT have the experience to serve as President of the United States. To wit: Obama - first term junior Senator from Illinois with no experience or knowledge in national security OR executive experience. Hillary - barely into her second term as New York's junior Senator, her only claim to fame is being the First 'Lady' during the 2 terms of Emperor Billigula. Likewise, she has no national security experience except for what positions in the Senate she managed to maneuver herself into over the course of her first term, and so far into this second term. Rudy Guiliani - an appointed federal prosecutor, his only elective office is former Mayor of New York. And were it not for his high profile on 9/11, he would be laughed off the national stage for even suggesting that he is ready to serve as President of the United States.

You, my unnamed friend, are just one more RudyBot, and an ignorant one at that - you clamor for me to list the 'accomplishments' of the three abovementioned individuals, when you know as well as I do that those individuals have so much in common politically (inexperience, liberal and WAY left of center, not to mention their support for infanticide, gun control, homosexual marriage, need I go on?) that their 'accomplishments' are virtually interchangeable so far as their own world view, their own social positions, and how they would govern if God forbid any one of them ever made to the Oval Office as Chief Executive.

I don't have to 'back up' a valid statement to satisfy the likes of you when you don't even have a basic understanding of past and present political history and reality.

So go educate yourself, I'm sure RudyBot Central has remedial courses that will bring you more in line with their out-of-the-mainstream-left-liberal-positions.

You're wise to use 'presently no screen name' as a handle, because you probably won't be remembered that way and you might evade the residual embarrassment that goes with it.

We're done here Mr. RudyBot.

Have a nice evening.

[Delphinium]

Had to be part of their plan. After all they don't seem to care about the consequences.

[Cacique]

btt

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Explain it for those of us that didn't get it.