Posted on 02/23/2007 7:05:51 PM PST by FairOpinion
I've never voted for Rudy Giuliani in my life. But I'm thinking hard about it now.
In both cases, I surprise myself.
The rest of America may know Rudy as "America's Mayor" for his ceremonial performance post-9/11, but for New Yorkers who lived through the Dinkins years, Rudy Giuliani is more than a guy who stands tall when the skyscrapers fall. By the late '90s, people were beginning to say that New York City was ungovernable: Remember the court-driven interest group spending, the disorder, the bums taking over the parks and the playgrounds and the street corners, spiraling welfare costs, the crime, the small business disaster, the high taxes, rent control, the South Bronx? New York was a disaster area, a poster child for what liberalism hath wrought.
The glittering cosmopolitan New York City we now live in, the one seemingly every college student in America dreams about moving to, is largely Rudy's gift, forged in the face of intense, daily, nasty invective from those who at the time insisted that to demand order and civility in a large city was to be a fascist.
Even Rudy's 9/11 performance tends to be misdescribed. It was not that he "stood tall" or didn't emotionally collapse. George Bush came to New York City and made graceful speeches about how we will rebuild the hole in the ground that still remains. What stood out for us in that dark time was not that the mayor of New York insisted we would triumph over this adversity, but that he didn't try to spin us about how unimaginably bad this sort of adversity was. He didn't try to soft-pedal the uncertainty, the chaos, the suffering the city was going through, and that gave us the confidence to believe that reality, terrible as it was, could in fact be faced.
I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. I don't look for purity in politicians, just for some small pro-life reason to vote for a guy: Medicaid funding, parental notification, partial birth abortion. Throw me the slightest lifeline, otherwise I assume he just doesn't want the vote of people like me. Rudy never did. So I never gave him my vote. And of course it doesn't help now to recall the way Rudy treated his second wife, nor do I particularly want to imagine the third Mrs. Giuliani as Laura Bush's successor.
So I could have sworn, even a few months ago, that I'd never vote for Rudy Giuliani, in spite of my deep respect for his considerable achievements as mayor. So why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments.
When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle. It's hard to see a state that George Bush won in which Rudy Giuliani will not beat Hillary Clinton. And he will put a whole slew of new blue states into play: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, to name just three. (The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani in a dead heat with Clinton in Connecticut.) Which puts people like me, who care very deeply about marriage and life issues, in the position of thinking hard about Rudy.
Ya, it is non partisan. If highly qualified Republicans don't apply, who are thin on the ground in NYC, and even thinner for those judicial positions (how many Repubican lawyers in NYC want to be family law judges, the ultimate in self inflicted relatively lowly paid professional agony?), then the advisory committee does not recommend them, and they don't get appointed. Simple really.
God, you really have no idea how stupid you sound, do you?
"Rudy is a shill for the globo-corporate media drive to assure that Hillary is elected."
You are mistaken. McCain was that candidate. The MSM is deeply disappointed at Rudy's meteoric rise and McCain's sinking.
and Mark Levin who worked in the Justice Dept under Reagan is not supporting Rudy
"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category."
Yes, Rudy said Ginsburg was very intelligent, very honest, and a very good lawyer. He did not say that he agreed with her judicial philosophy. Rudy has said he supports strict constructionist like Roberts and Scalia. Ted Olsen has said Rudy does as well. Ted Olsen is no liar.
"The race will be Cheney v Gore."
You are being sarcastic, right?
In late September, Hunter was the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner in a hall at Washington's Union Station, where the hawkish defense group the Center for Security Policy presented him with its annual "Keeper of the Flame" award.
Among those lauding him at the Center for Security Policy banquet that evening was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Pentagon relies on Hunter's "wisdom, his leadership, his experience and his 'get it done' attitude.'
"It is something when he comes into your office like a whirling dervish and starts discussing a subject first at the national level and then down at the microlevel, and then leaves you pieces of metal on your desk that you can hardly lift and has explained exactly where it goes, what it's for, why it should be there and then wants to know why it isn't. And God bless him for it."
Rumsfeld also said the U.S. is more secure because of Hunter.
"He's never let the troops down, and as a result of his leadership and his hard work, our nation is a safer place today," Rumsfeld told the dinner gathering that included Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Oh hell no. Why would you unless you believed in him?
So you're making yourself out to be a fool.
I'm sorry for you.
Bush is easily more loyal to his principles than you are.
McLame bombed, so Rudy's their new shill. He'll make certain enough conservatives stay home that Hillary will win by default.
Any claim that Rudy would nominate Constitutional constructionist judges is belied by his antipathy for the Second Amendment, so don't go there.
This wipe has already been posted.
Hillary stands no chance. Her own party is more than 50% against her. She would lose worse than sKerry, so they won't let her run. David Geffen is investing a few millions of his personal stash to stop her.
We don't need to consider losers like Rudy or Romney; We can go for a real candidate that we don't need to hold our nose to vote for.
Uh, no. Gore is gonna win in Hollyweird, big time. He BEAT BUSH. Ask any dimocrat. He IS the great white hope. Cheny can unite the party like no one else. He wins the GOP if he wants it.
God, you really have no idea how stupid you sound, do you?
Actually no. I like insulting Bush bashers. And I like reading my quotes reposted by bozos like you.
=====
Your excellent point deserves highlighting and repeating. You hit the nail on the head. Literally the faith of the Western Civilization is in the balance.
so the placement in the MSM polls of Hunter
can also be not factual.
You can't have it both ways.
I can't wait for your reaction when Giuliani fails to win the GOP nomination. Will it be a minor or full-fledged meltdown?
Really? My God, you're delusional. Point me to his major conservative stances that he's implemented, all two of them. Add to that the the man is embarrassing as hell to listen to when he speaks and wow, you have yourself a Republican hat trick.
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.