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.
That's not bigotry, it's basic common sense, and morality. (get some soon)
Rudy is not what we need.
Yes, and in the very same quote Rudy specifically said he is NOT going to consider being "pro-choice" as a requirement/litmus test for the judges.
"Colmes: How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. "
Narses, where are you? This is reality calling. Come back from the world of spam. Neither are running! And we certainly don't want Cheney as our nominee. He would get crushed worse than Goldwater did.
And what about the general? He has higher negatives then the President!
Excellent. Then ask, how will the USA be defended? What will our military look like in 8 years? What will the welfare system look like with 20 million illegals and other sucking at the govt's ....? What will SS and Medicare look like as our Tax system crashes? It is not hard to foresee a socialist pacifist disaster if any Dem including The Empty Suit BO being elected along with a continuation of the Dem Congress. A slide into a Third World status.
Minor compared to the moral, spiritual, and cultural nuking that he would do to the country. Fear God, not his enemies.
I will not make that pledge.
How about you make this one: "I, as a conservative, will only support candidates who support small government, low taxes, a strong defense, and traditional values...and promise to work to defeat any who do not, regardless of what affiliations they should happen to claim."
Having said all of that, if Rudy is not nominated, the GOP nominee will be beaten like a drum by the Dem nominee, more likely than not, in fact considerably more likely than not, at least one standard deviation from the mean more likely than not, which means the Dem will be a 2-1 favorite. You can write that down.
And also I just can’t understand why so many are making Rudy look more liberal than he really is on social issues and why they refuse to acknowledge he is a conservative on just about every non-social issue and I certainly can’t understand how social issues are more important than all the other issues when choosing a President since the President has very little influence on social issues. And I certainly can’t understand how being “perfect” on social issues is more important than electability.
To begin with, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. On Hannity and Colmes on February 5th he said, “Marriage should be between a man and a woman. [It's] exactly the position I've always had.” Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. And to top things off, marriage is a state issue. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.
Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.
In general on abortion, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
I'll admit his past gun stances are bothersome but he has say that what's good for NYC isn't good for all of America. However, he isn’t the anti-Second Amendment Nazi he is made out to be. On Hannity Rudy said, “I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms.” Rudy isn’t going to try to ban guns or come take anyones guns. Are Democrats pushing for gun control now that they have control of Congress? No. And nobody has pushed for gun control since Gore lost the election in 2000. Everyone knows its a losing issue and I don't see any push for gun control by anybody in the near future.
Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare, cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor and supports school choice, ect), for smaller government and government deregulation, for social security reform, supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect our lives at all!!!
Finally, Rudy is, IMO, the only Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary or Rudy. Sure, we can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, if he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. Everyone know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So I think we need to stop worrying about gays, people that don't affect our lives life at all. We need to worry about Islamic fascism, the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.
Many in the conservative community are open to Rudy. Sean Hannity is certainly open to Rudy and likes Rudy. George Will wrote this about Rudy, ““His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes." Heck, even Rush is open to Rudy. Rush said, “"He's a smart cookie ... Here's the thing about Giuliani," he said on his radio show the other day. "Everybody's got problems with him ... But when you start polling him on judges, he's a strict constructionist ... That will count for quite a bit. He can fix the abortion thing ... So I think he's got potential--particularly, folks, since we're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008." If Rush is at least open to Rudy then he realizes Rudy isn’t that bad.
And apparently even Reagan liked Rudy. Rudy was Reagan's Associate Attorney General and was awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, putting him along side Margaret Thachter, Billy Graham, and Bob Hope as receiptants of the award. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Yes, Rudy may be alittle bit of a compromise but in reality, everytime you vote it’s a compromise. Nobody is ever going to find a candidate or a President they agree with 100% of the time, even Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 and I’m sure the vast majority of Freepers disagree with that. Reagan even appointed O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Nobody is perfect. The only thing we can do is find the Presidential candidate we agree with the most on the most important issues and issues the President has the most influence over, the one that is the most electable, and the one that would make the best and strongest leader. That’s Rudy.
Back to Ronald Reagan for a second. In the above excerpt he used the term “radical conservatives”. So apparently Reagan thought that conservatives that were all or nothing, unappeasable, unpragmatic, and unrealistic are “radical”. I do too. Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself. I must now end the overly long post by quoting Dennis Miller, who also supports Rudy, “Rudy would have the best bumpersticker, ‘I’m the man the men in caves don’t want to win’”. Enough said
You think you are doing the righteous thing by towing the party line. If you believe the people I mentioned before would agree with you, then yes, you are delusional.
If Rudy doesn't win the Republican nomination, you might as well practice saying "Heil Fuhrer Hillary".
Honest to God, is that all you have?
And I hate to inform some on here but the POTUS can't stop people from being gay and what gays do in their private lives doesn't affect us in the least.
While the question was not addressed to me, I'll put my two cents in: I will not vote for any any pro abortionist candidate. The WOT, taxes, the economy, judges ... those issues mean nothing to me compared to innocent life.
(now stepping off the soap box)
Your dishonesty disgusts me.
Bush is more of a conservative than you deserve.
GW dumpedKyoto Treaty on Global Warming, for one.
GWB pulled the U.S. out of the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty, for another.
GWB backed and got our National Missile Defense program funded.
GWB Killed the International Criminal Court.
GWB repealed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off electricity production in California and causing electricity rates to spike.
GWB repealed OSHA's new ergonomic regulations that were about to put every home-based business in America out of commission.
GWB appointed Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, who just wrote to the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not the "collective right" that liberals have maintained for decades.
GWB signed the bill into law that gives pilots the right to arm themselves with firearms, a pleasant pro-gun victory on a national level (currently being obstructed by a DOT bureaucrat).
GWB killed the Left-Wing ABA's role in vetting federal judges for Congress.
GWB instituted the first top-down review of our military in years, which concluded (prior to 9/11), that asymmetric attacks were our biggest future threat.
GWB killed the $11 Billion Crusader artillery boondoggle. GWB killed federal funding of foreign "family planning" activities.
GWB ordered the Justice Department to finally enforce the SCOTUS Beck decision, giving union workers the right to recover any of their union dues that are used for political purposes with which they disagree.
" I will not vote for any any pro abortionist candidate. The WOT, taxes, the economy, judges ... those issues mean nothing to me compared to innocent life."
Then please tell us HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY SUPPORTING HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT?
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.