American Rudy: Hot Dog Wants to Be Corn Dog

NY Observer ^ | February 21, 2007 | Jason Horowitz

[don-o]

Rudy Giuliani now comes in a new package. Social conservatives still aren’t buying it.

“It’s a sleight of hand,” said Bob Barr, a former Georgia Congressman and champion of small government. “On issues that I consider extremely important to conservatives, such as respect for the Second Amendment, he is nowhere near even remotely in the ballpark of a conservative philosophy.”

The famously resolute, plain-spoken and uncompromising former Mayor has unveiled new shades of nuance to go along with his historically liberal positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage, which pose the major obstacles to his pursuit of the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm with you.

[Gop1040]

"Rudy couldn't bring himself to do that (support Pataki). I haven't heard him (or anyone else) provide a believable explanation or justification for his actions."

I've worked in NYS government under the 12-year Pataki administration, and believe me Rudy had legitimate reasons not to support him for Governor. Pataki tenure has since validated Rudy's concerns. Pataki was strictly for Pataki and over the years has decimated the Republican Party where today there are no state-wide office holders, the Assembly increased it's Democratic majority, and the Senate has now a swing of only 4 or 5 seats from going Democratic.

[mkjessup]

"Rudy couldn't bring himself to do that (support Pataki). I haven't heard him (or anyone else) provide a believable explanation or justification for his actions."
I've worked in NYS government under the 12-year Pataki administration, and believe me Rudy had legitimate reasons not to support him for Governor. Pataki tenure has since validated Rudy's concerns. Pataki was strictly for Pataki and over the years has decimated the Republican Party where today there are no state-wide office holders, the Assembly increased it's Democratic majority, and the Senate has now a swing of only 4 or 5 seats from going Democratic.

So are you saying that Rudy was psychic and knew that Pataki wasn't going to be good for New York?

12 years after the fact, you have the advantage of hindsight, and working within the state government, it is your judgment that Pataki has been a disaster for the New York Republican Party.

However Rudy had no way of knowing how the next 12 years would play out, and as an alleged Republican, he was obligated to support the nominee of the state party organization, which is the same argument RudyBots are using to try and browbeat conservative mainstream Republicans that they 'must' support Rudy because he is either a.) the only candidate who can beat Hillary (assuming she is the 'Rat nominee) or b.) if he is the nominee, he has to have all Republicans united behind him regardless of Rudy's left-of-center views.

Your description of the Pataki years does not surprise me, for he too is a RINO with liberal views within the Republican Party. However it is disingenuous to try and portray Rudy's refusal to support Pataki as being some kind of latter day manifestation of 'Mr. Republican' (the original being Robert Taft). Rudy is no such thing.

When the New York gubernatorial contest began between Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, the candidates started on more or less, a level playing field.

Rudy not only refused to support his team, he ratted them out and supported their opponent(s).

That sort of feckless behavior is NOT a quality you want in a President.

[don-o]

btt

[Vicomte13]

Sure, if it GENUINELY endangers the life of the mother, even the Pope would allow the mother to choose to have an abortion, if there was no way to get the baby out of there safely for both baby and mother.

But that's not the rape or incest exception.
Nor is that killing babies for stem cell research.
Nor is that partial birth abortion: if you can give birth all the way to the head without risking the life of the mother, then letting the baby be born completely will NEVER risk the life of the mother any more than the rest of the labor did.

The trouble is that people want abortion rights.
They want them because it's the guardrail for recreational sex. Don't have abortion rights, and recreational sex becomes riskier. People would rather kill babies than restrict consenting adults sex lives or impose permanent economic consequences for recreational sex. It's just the way it is, and in a democracy that's not predominantly Catholic (or any other clearly anti-abortion religion) it's going to stay that way. Only judicial fiat could change the mix, and strict constructionists are not conservative activists, so they'll never do it, not even if you've got 9 of them on the Supreme Court. They'll strike down Roe and return it to the states, where the people will democratically vote to preserve abortion rights.

[Vicomte13]

Libertarians support abortion rights, don't they?
It's a matter of personal liberty, isn't it?

[Vicomte13]

Nice chart.
Now put McCain's positions on it, and discover he's quite conservative.

[Sun]

"..A Fox News poll of 900 registered voters released last week showed Mr. Giuliani crushing Mr. McCain, 56 percent to 31 percent, among Republicans."

I heard that McCain's campaign contributions also went down, which is why we need to contribute to the conservative candidate of our choice so they can get their message out.

[mkjessup]

Nice chart.
Now put McCain's positions on it, and discover he's quite conservative.

McCain could stand up and literally channel the voice of Ronald Reagan himself, but McCain would still be the same legislator who sponsored that atrocity called 'McCain-Feingold' which was unconstitutional, was foolishly signed into law by a President who ought to have known better, and allowed to stand by a Supreme Court that abdicated their responsibility to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution of the United States.

Any alleged 'conservative' act, word or deed that McCain has, or may perform, is nullified by his betrayal of the Constitution with the bill that bears his name.

And if that isn't enough, any Senator who was shot down in the Vietnam War, KNOWS FULL WELL that the WORST Secretary of Defense in United States history is Robert Strange McNamara, but goes on to call Donald Rumsfeld 'the worst SecDef' is not only daft, he is a backstabbing sonuvab*tch that isn't worthy to shine Rummy's shoes.

McCain is no conservative, he is the epitome of a RINO opportunist who will do anything and say anything in the hope of conning enough people (like you?) into thinking he is a 'conservative Republican'.

Ask our Founder Jim Robinson what he thinks about McCain, he'll be happy to bring you right up to speed, I'm sure.

"discover he's [McCain] quite conservative"

My ASS!

[Vicomte13]

Alrightee then.
So, what do you think about George W. Bush?

[hosepipe]

[.. I won't easily forget him coming to Iowa to endorse uber-RINO Greg Ganske in the Senate primary against conservative Bill Salier, or his going to work for the ACLU communists. ..]

Exactly.... Who does he think he's fooling?..
This guy is an uber-mole..

[Gop1040]

"......Rudy not only refused to support his team, he ratted them out and supported their opponent(s). That sort of feckless behavior is NOT a quality you want in a President."

It's apparent you don't understand NYC vs NYS politics. NYC has always been a democratic city, whereas Upstate NY has been predominately republican. To function properly NYC has to come to Albany every year and beg for money for mandated, but underfunded programs.

Gov. Mario Cuomo, for all his liberal views had been good to NYC. With Rudy's ambitious program to clean up and make NYC safe and self-sufficient, he had to rely on a known quantity. Pataki was an Upstater whose consistency was outside NYC. Rudy and most New Yorkers knew this. He backed the wrong candidate and lost. He didn't hide from it or try to explain it away. It was a mistake, he accepted the consequences and apologized to Pataki. END OF STORY.

You may characterize Rudy's action however you want. Raising NYC from the dead was his mandate and his mission. The rest is history. Call him psychic.....No. Call him instinctive and courageous.....YES.

[Kevmo]

Call him instinctive and courageous.....YES.
***I'm okay with Rudy being called instinctive and courageous, but he won't get my vote nor the votes of millions of socons. We simply disagree with him and he can't pull the wool over our eyes. What is his instinctive and courageous plan once he realizes he would split the base and lose to Hillary? Once he moves forward, he's no longer instinctive and courageous; he's just someone who will say whatever needs to be said to become president. No thanks.

[mkjessup]

Gov. Mario Cuomo, for all his liberal views had been good to NYC. With Rudy's ambitious program to clean up and make NYC safe and self-sufficient, he had to rely on a known quantity.

Some would call that being pragmatic.

Others would call it selling out to the guy who held the pursestrings.

In any event, with that skill at spinning a favorable version of the former mayor, you could probably make a bundle as a consultant to Rudy, have you considered that?

I'm impressed.

[mkjessup]

Alrightee then.
So, what do you think about George W. Bush?

I think that he would have made a fantastic Vice President to President Dick Cheney.

[Gop1040]

"Some would call that being pragmatic. Others would call it selling out to the guy who held the pursestrings......"

In other words the old cliche, "the operation was a success (support Pataki), but the patient died (NYC) " would have been a better gamble. I don't buy it. For anyone, let alone a Repbulican to effectively govern NYC, pragmatism is an necessity.

BTW, thanks for the compliment.

[Vicomte13]

You wrote: "McCain would still be the same legislator who sponsored that atrocity called 'McCain-Feingold' which was unconstitutional, was foolishly signed into law by a President who ought to have known better, and allowed to stand by a Supreme Court that abdicated their responsibility to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution of the United States.
Any alleged 'conservative' act, word or deed that McCain has, or may perform, is nullified by his betrayal of the Constitution with the bill that bears his name."

Bush didn't just "foolishly sign the bill into law."
He supported it. He told the Congress his conditions for it, and HE, by signing it, is the one who made it become law. McCain is one vote out of 100, but Bush, and only Bush, has the veto. Bush bears the greatest responsibility of anyone alive for McCain-Feingold. So, do you say that "Any alleged 'conservative' act, word or deed that [Bush] has, or may perform, is nullified by his betrayal of the Constitution with the bill that bears [McCain's] name."
Or do you give Bush a pass and hammer the less powerful and less essential McCain for the bill Bush made into law?
Consistency would be appropriate here.
If McCain is a traitor to the Constitution and America for proposing the Bill to a Congres where he could only persuade, Bush bears even greater opprobrium for not only negotiating the Bill, but making it HAPPEN as a law, by signing it into law.

My guess is that you will hold McCain more responsible than Bush, which is not only reversing reality, but demonstrates my point up-thread that Republican conservatives are irrationally bat-shit about McCain.

[mkjessup]

Bush didn't just "foolishly sign the bill into law." He supported it. He told the Congress his conditions for it, and HE, by signing it, is the one who made it become law. McCain is one vote out of 100, but Bush, and only Bush, has the veto. Bush bears the greatest responsibility of anyone alive for McCain-Feingold. So, do you say that "Any alleged 'conservative' act, word or deed that [Bush] has, or may perform, is nullified by his betrayal of the Constitution with the bill that bears [McCain's] name." Or do you give Bush a pass and hammer the less powerful and less essential McCain for the bill Bush made into law? Consistency would be appropriate here. If McCain is a traitor to the Constitution and America for proposing the Bill to a Congress where he could only persuade, Bush bears even greater opprobrium for not only negotiating the Bill, but making it HAPPEN as a law, by signing it into law. My guess is that you will hold McCain more responsible than Bush, which is not only reversing reality, but demonstrates my point up-thread that Republican conservatives are irrationally bat-shit about McCain.

First of all, you guessed wrong.

You are absolutely correct, that President Bush is the one person as Chief Executive who is ultimately responsible for McCain-Feingold becoming law. And if one looks to assign blame, one has to assign blame to Bush as well as to McCain and every other legislator that voted in favor of it.

So to answer your double-edged sword of a question (and I suspect you are rubbing your hands in glee in anticipation of this), I would have to say that President Bush has indeed nullified much if not all of the good he had done as President and not only because of McCain-Feingold.

I have supported the President when I can, I have sometimes had to hold my nose to support him because I think he has been drastically wrong on many issues, but the reason I voted for him in 2000 and 2004 is because Bush presented himself as a conservative, his opponents were lunatic leftist 'Rats and the only lasting domestic legacy he is going to have as President will be the tax cuts which have kept this economy from tanking during wartime, and the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS, and I think they will prove themselves to be good conservative judges.

You want a complete critique of George W. Bush? I'm not going to give you one for reasons of time and space, but I will say that Bush's performance in the area of border security is absolutely dismal to the point of damn near failing to uphold his Oath of Office, i.e., here we are in wartime, our southern border is a sieve, and when Jim Gilchrist and the Minutemen begin to assist the U.S. Border Patrol, they (and other like-minded citizens) are slandered by this Administration as 'vigilantes', and I say that is Bullsh*t!

Instead of practically bending over backwards and doing the limbo to avoid offending Vincente Fox, our President should have been calling upon every able bodied U.S. citizen in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to get their guns and ammo, organize themselves into militias, coordinate with both civil and military authorities, and seal the damn border! We should have informed Mexico that ANY illegal crossing the border into the United States without authorization would be looking down the barrel of a gun, would be immediately arrested, classified as being NEVER eligible for entering the U.S. again OR to apply for citizenship, and subject to being placed on a work crew for constructing that wall that is long overdue. It is a matter of national security. We're at WAR dammit! In my opinion, there is no difference between what Bush has done (or failed to do) in that area, and the actions of any liberal, illegal-immigrant-pandering Democrat. I believe that issue alone may have precipitated the Republican loss of Congress last November.

Now in a related area, his retention of that idiot Norman Mineta at Transportation, and the politically correct passenger screening that became the norm post 9/11 is an absolute disgrace. Mineta should have been shown the door the afternoon of January 21, 2001, and ditto for that clown George Tenet over at the CIA.

President Bush has regretfully spent way too much time playing nice-nice with the likes of Teddy Kennedy and his fellow 'Rats, only to be rewarded with a figurative back of the hand and called a liar from one end of this country to the other, by noneother THAN Fat Teddy.

Want more? There is the abominable 'No Child Left Behind Act' which contains all the desired excessive 'Rat largesse compliments of the aforementioned Swimmer from Massachusetts.

So to return to the question hanging over all this, the answer is indeed "yes", the good things that President Bush has done domestically will be tainted by those questionable actions which not only weaken the Constitution (McCain-Feingold) but endanger our national security by not vigorously defending our borders.

President Bush's strong suit has been foreign policy and for that he deserves a good deal of credit for freeing over 50 million Muslims from Islamofascist tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq, his decision to go after Saddam was the correct one, because if Saddam were still in power today, we can be assured that he would be racing to try and match the nuclear efforts of Iran, and innocent Iraqis would still be getting fed into shredding machines while their wives, mothers and daughters were subject to government rape-rooms at any time. The liberation of Iraq has been ugly, no question of that, and mistakes were made, but our goal remains the same because our President has made it clear that our objective is victory, and nothing less.

Because President Bush took out Saddam like the garbage he was, Libya took one look at it's cards, and folded, turning over THEIR nuclear program to the United States and the U.K. (and it was more advanced than anything Iraq had going on), that too is something for which President Bush deserves credit.

In the area of ballistic missile defense, this Administration wisely exited the antiquated ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union, and because of that, we have a basic 'bare-bones' missile defense with which we may well be able to counter any nukes lobbed at us from North Korea. At the same time, I fail to understand the elaborate Dance of the Seven Warheads or whatever the Hell is going on at the illustrious 'Six Party Talks', but as much as I would prefer to see immediate regime change via B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombardment over Pyongyang, the far greater danger is that of Iran.

I dearly hope that President Bush is going to give the order for taking our Iran's nuke capability AND their demented Islamo-13th-Nervous-Breakdown-Imam or whoever it is in that damn well Ahmadinejad keeps yelling down, because it is inevitable that if Iran obtains a working nuclear warhead, it will be used and most likely on Israel, which is the avowed enemy of Iran's ruling mullahs (and once again, thank YOU Jimmy STP Carter for THAT!).

Now anyone (myself included) can nit-pick the President's foreign policy, and it's easy for us (any of us) to say what we would or would not do if we were sitting in the Oval Office ourselves. I keep trying to reassure myself by remembering that I do not see (and probably won't see) the intelligence data and threat assessments that cross the President's desk every day. I do believe that President Bush is doing his level best to win this war, I am 100 percent certain that there are no interns under his desk while he's contemplating decisions affecting our armed forces, and as gratified that I am that the Oval Office hasn't been known as the 'Oral Office' for the past 6 years, I wish that President Bush would go after his partisan political enemies with the gusto that we went after the Taliban and Saddam.

I was asked the other night what I thought of President Bush and I honestly answered that I thought he would have made a fantastic Vice President for *President* Dick Cheney, and I had concerns from Day One of this Administration because every time we hear a president (or a candidate) talk about 'changing the tone in Washington', that usually ends up meaning that the altruistic one speaking those words is the one that's not only going to get changed, they're going to get screwed, blued and tattooed.

I don't want 'bi-partisanship', I don't want Democrats and Republicans blended together in some mixmaster of feel good bromides and 'go along to get along, I want raw, blatant domestic partisan WARFARE!

Does anyone in their right mind think the Democrats have been seeking 'bipartisanship'? Hell no! They play nothing BUT political hardball, they cut the political throats of all that stand in their way, and they take NO prisoners whatsoever!

We need a Republican President that is prepared to wage political war on the Democrats with the same kind of dedication and determination that we wage war on terrorism. We don't need, nor should we desire all of our elected representatives smiling and slapping each other on the back like it's Happy Hour every hour ON the hour, we need representatives to keep their blades AND their tongues sharp, their minds focused and engaged, and wading into each other to figuratively kill or be killed, because of all the various philosophies that are slamming into each other, the only way America wins is for ONE to prevail, and that is the conservative originalist (thank you Jim Robinson) philosophy of our Founding Fathers.

Today's Democrats are 'DINOs' (Democrats In Name Only) because they have more in common with the old Communist Party / Socialist Party of the USA than with the now dead Party of Truman, JFK and Humphrey.

And the Republican Party is in danger of turning into nothing but 'Rat-lite', what in Canada would be called the 'Red Tory' Conservative Party, fiscally conservative but socially as left of center as any 60's radical could hope for.

So, the bottom line to this damn rant (as Vicomte13 is most likely chortling "I can't BELIEVE he went and DID that!") is that the reason I am supporting Duncan Hunter for President in '08 is because I refuse to compromise conservative principles ANYMORE!

George W. Bush came into office calling himself a 'compassionate conservative' and all that means to me now is that he is a moderate at best, a compromiser with liberal tendencies at the worst.

I would indeed be much happier if we were all discussing whether or not Vice President George W. Bush would be throwing his hat into the ring to run for a presidential term of his own when President Cheney retires at the end of a magnificently successful two term presidency.

Now all the BushBots can join up with the RudyBots and make common cause in flaming my ass until it glows like a charcoal-broiled rump roast.

Bon appetit dammit, bring it on! ;)

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

First of all, that doesn't really answer my question, and abortion is not by any means the only social issue. But more importantly, the vast majority of libertarians do not hold a liberal position on abortion. There are a fair number of libertarians who are pro-life, but the views of most libertarians don't fit neatly into "pro-life" or "pro-choice" labels. The positions that I hold on abortion I feel are the same as many who consider themselves libertarians, which are as follows:

-Opposition to any federal regulations on abortion.
-Supporting the rights of states to have their own restrictions on abortions, i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade.
-Within my own state, opposing a law that would outlaw abortion.

So, basically in favor of abortion rights, but by the rule of the law within individual states, not the Supreme Court. This is NOT the position of most liberals and/or pro-choice activists.

[Kryptonite]

How many respondents know that Giuliani has been married three times?