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.
"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.
"Ask yourself: "What judges will Hillary put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years."
GRRRRR. Hillary-scaremongering. This is the most empty-headed fatuous argument you could POSSIBLY make. Rudy is not facing Hillary in the primary -he is facing Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Hunter, maybe Newt and others. ... and this comment ....
"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."
... THESE FACTS ALONE IS WORTH A GOOD DROP IN HIS POLL NUMBERS. We are rpeatedly told newt is 'unelectable' for his divorces, and yet Rudy has had worse in his personal life. He will lose pro-lifers, evangelicals, and he will lose the women vote.
We are supposed to forgive him on it because he is a social liberal. uh huh, that will surely keep the evangelical vote solid. (Most of whom know little about this stuff, and the media wont tell them until Rudy is locked down as the GOP candidate, and then the DNC dirt will fly.)
And it gets worse. ... HOW DO YO KNOW RUDY WONT NOMINATE A SOUTER?
Ask yourself: "What judges will Rudy put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years.
Ask yourself: "What judges will Hunter put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years.
Ask yourself: "What judges will Romney put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years.
Ask yourself: "What judges will McCain put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years.
Ask yourself: "What judges will Newt put on the Supreme Court"? THAT is what will make a difference for the next 50 years.
He's 'prochoice' and anti-gun and on many other issues not conservative. WE CANNOT TRUST RUDY ON THAT ISSUE. WE CAN TRUST OTHER CANDIDATES FAR MORE.
National security - what's so special about Rudy on national security, a man who has never held any federal office. So he dissed Arafat. He's also far more open borders pro-amnesty than other candidates. How helpful is that?
Everytime I read another 'conservative for Rudy' article, I get madder and madder at the fatuous and lame arguments.
They dont add up to anything but poor excuse for 'well, I'll overlook the obvious problems and maybe they will go away'. There is this bizarre and hidden desperation for some conservatives to abandon what they believe in. We will never have conservative govt if that path is taken. Geez, folks, it is simple math: Find a candidate you believe in who follows your vision of what ought to be and vote for him/her. To do anything other than that in the primary is to throw away your vote.
Recommend you READ the article!!!!
While Rudy epitomizes medium corruption and medium liberalism.
Just say no to liberalism.
"And election is NOT between some imaginary people vs. real ones, it's between TWO (READ AGAIN: TWO) candidates"
Wrong. There are multiple candidates in the primary.
The primary decision is to decide who the best Republican candidate should be. There are many factors, and when you weight them *all* in totality, Rudy does NOT in any way add up to the best choice for conservative Republicans:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-should-be-our-next-president.html
"Hillary-scaremongering."
Sure, that's what some said about the 2006 election: "Pelosi scaremongering" and look what the Dems are doing after barely a month in power. Just think what will Hillary do.
"A vote is an expression of approval and agreement, not a choice of the lesser of two evils."
You just betrayed yourself -- you just revealed that you are from Mars. Clearly you are clueless about what elections mean.
"Hillary is likewise, not automatically assured of the 'Rat nomination"
"So you wouldn't mind President Barack Hussein Obama ?"
You are making the wrong assumption that Rudy is the only candidate who could stop Obama from getting elected.
If I proved to you that Rudy is less electable than either Newt or Romney, would you change your mind and support one of those two?
In fact, Romney or Newt both would be perfect candidates against Obama. Newt would be a bad candidate vis a vis Hilary due to gender gap (but so would Rudy).
Some want a POTUS fun and libby ~
I need my Prez more rock-ribby
Yeah right. 3/4's of the kind of people who post at FR being "the fringe."
FIRST: you have to win.
LOSING candidates can't nominate anyone to anything.
"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. "
Pity. I'd like a candidate stand up and call her a dangerous traitor to the Constitution who deserves impeachment and removal.
Right. And millions of asteroids may fall out of the sky, striking only Democrats dead and leaving everybody else unscathed!
/s
Newt has public negativity ratings of 64%!! Newt couldn't win regardless of which Democrat wins. Rudy has positive ratings in the mid 60s. In the latest poll he wins independents 64%-27%. Rudy is the only Republican up over all the Democratic frontrunners. All the others are down double digits.
"I'd like a candidate stand up and call her a dangerous traitor to the Constitution who deserves impeachment and removal."
That's the way to win over mainstream and middle America. A sure winner there. /s
Yeah right. 3/4's of the kind of people who post at FR being "the fringe."
Let's see:
"Over 200,000 people have registered for posting privileges on Free Republic "
"624 FR members voted for Hunter"
I'm glad to see somebody shares my perspective on this. Sadly they don't seem to have learned their lesson yet.
It's clear enough what elections mean when they are won by people like you: The empowerment of leftwingers like Schwarzeneggar and Giuliani.
Stop pretending a FR poll is scientific and accurately represents anything. I wasn't around here in 1999 and 2000 but from what I hear according to FR polls Keyes was going to be the nominee in 2000!! LOL
How many have voted for Giuliani?
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.