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.
"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
THAT should clinch it for most people. And it's very clear too, who are the "men in caves" rooting for.
1. Writing down Torie's prediction doesnt make it true.
2. Voting Rudy is hardly 'outside the box' wrt Iraq. Rudy has been a good and loyal defender of Bush administration on Iraq. Its one thing I credit Rudy for. But if your pole-star is unpopularity in Iraq, you have to forget about the two GOP "frontrunners" Rudy and McCain. Rudy will be tied back to Bush on WOT, rightly so.
... IF YOU REALLY WANT TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, GO OUTSIDE WASHINGTON! That means dump McCain and go for Huckabee or Romney! Both are Governors, and GOVERNORS MAKE GREAT OUTSIDER CANDIDATES - ask Jimmy Carter, ask Ronald Reagan, ask Bill Clinton.
There is no precedent for someone who never held either Governorship nor national office or post becoming President. Rudy faces stiff odds.
"You're right - this is shaping up as another 1952-type race"
If we want to win it back, I suggest think OUTSIDE THE DC BOX. ... Romney or Huckabee.
JimRob's "jihad" as you put it has certainly ignited debate, which is cool;
but its also ignited a storm of character assassination - a 'Rat tactic that is very very BAD.
As the next year rolls along, I hope that FR doesn't self-immolate over the GOP candidate issue.....
Carville or Begala could utter those exact words with equal conviction...and they would have just the same meaning for America.
a. Doesn't have ties to Dubya;
b. Has anything close to Hitlary's name-recognition, and who
c. has anything close to das Hildabeast's $$$$$$-raising ability, and
I WILL support him.
But there isn't.
The only candidate that fits the above criteria is....RUDY.
Huckabee is open borders and pro amnesty.
Mitt, his flip flopping is such a joke he is not taken seriously
You're G-D right that I WILL!
The problem is that each of them has only a slightly better chance of getting nominated than I do.
That is the brutal truth that will hit you soon enough.
"On abortion, Clinton said the Bush administration has "taken their political positioning much further that we've ever seen before," and added she is pressing for legislation stressing pregnancy prevention."
Yes, I can see, how conservatives would prefer Hillary to Rudy. (/sarcasm)
"Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Wasn't your pal Arnie defending Hillary just today?
Time to bring back my other tagline...
Please first look at my post #254 on this thread.
It is clear from your heartfelt, well reasoned, and intelligent presentation that you should not vote for Guiliani in the Republican primary. As a strong supporter of Guiliani, I do not intend on challenging you as to what this means for a Guiliani presidency at this time. I respect your opposition and know that I will not change your mind. I do offer the following thought to think about if Rudy is nominated by the Republicans. New York City is not a venue where a mayor can espouse a consistently strong conservative viewpoint. On crime, Rudy challenged the liberal orthodoxy manifested by his predecessor Dinkins and took strong controversial steps to significantly reduce crime. One only needs to look at Times Square to see marked evidence of his success. Rudy's positions on the WOT do not take a backseat to anyone.
While I am not asking you now to change your objections to Guiliani in the primary, nor do I expect you to be other than frustrated and angered if Guiliani is nominated. If that occurs, then I am asking you to rise above those feelings and engage in the choice ahead in a thoughtful manner. You are exactly the type of person that I will challenge to strongly support Guiliani if matched up against Hillary.
One thing that I want to be clear with you on. I recognize that your feelings at this time are focused on and so strong anti-Guiliani and you might feel that there is no way you can support him under any circumstances - even against Hillary. My head up the butt comment does not pertain to such a current assessment at this time as the focus is more
on who will be the Republican candidate. There is no rationale reason for you at this time to reflect upon a Guiliani vs Clinton race. There will be ample time for such reflection if and when the race comes about. As a person who is able to think, I do believe (or at least hope that you would believe) with my head up the butt assessment.
"What is important is not what you think but why you think it to be true. That is: explain, provide data, etc. to illustrate your point. Otherwise, yer just full of it..."
I gave 2 points to show that Rudy is porbably more unelectable than a better candidate like, say, Newt:
1. Rudy social liberalism would peel off many social conservatives
2. Combined with baggage on his personal life due to his ugly divorces, mistress, gay room-mate, etc. and would further impact that and hurt him among women.
3. Bernie Kerik.
4. Soros' Media Matters has already done the dirt-digging for Hillary. It's all in the timing of the media - they wont use it now because they want Rudy above real conservatives, but they will want Democrats over Rudy, so conclusion - he gets killed in the general election, by welltimed bombs:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605080006
5. A liberal says: "If Rudy does get the nod, it will be a real sign of desperation for the Republican Party. "
Are you desperate?
We have a year to think about it. A lot can happen in a year. In a day for that matter.
"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."
Eisenhower won that nomination barely, by agreeing to put the CA Governor on the Supreme Court in exchange for Calis support. Had Eisenhower not won the nomination, we would have had the most conservative President and Congress since Coolidge, and been able to roll back more of the welfare state. Instead, the "Warren Court" famous and infamous for leading the USSC down the primrose path of judicial activism was created, taxes remained high, and the New Deal liberalism was confirmed and expanded upon.
Eisenhower also frittered away the GOP Congressional majority and led to the resurgence of the Democrats in the 1960s.
Do we really want history to repeat itself?
JimRob said it right:
"Do not repeat the now obvious mistakes made in '92, '96 and '06 and barely avoided in '00 and '04. Be sure the candidate we choose actually walks and talks the conservative platform!
Motivate the base. Win elections!"
I can't believe we are learning the opposite of the lesson that 2006 should teach us.
Thank you for that very apt piece of political history.
The left wing of the GOP always does that. Always.
"New York City is not a venue where a mayor can espouse a consistently strong conservative viewpoint. "
True, but did Guliani have to endorse liberal Democrat Mario Coumo over Pataki in 1994?
Is there such a thing as a "Coumo Republican"?!?!?
Compare with blue-stater Romney who is more consistently conservative in his governance despite the similar dilemma of an R among lib Dems:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/
Do you win one of Bad Santa's Hawaiian shirts for posting here in this manner?
Rudy knows money....thats a big plus.
Rudy went to Israel and rode the Bus's after Palestinian Suicides there....by the way....those buses really came apart,....Rudy was the real deal then.
The Conservative centre wants in America...yes
but who is their rep that is known?
Who has speaking points to rival Queen Hitlery?
Rudy is likely to do something about the border
will keep funding for the Pentagon and secret Black opps programs which are very neccesary !!
Rudy will not let the liberal/social agenda run amok...even though He is somewhat Liberal
He is best placed to handle whats coming.....Iran,China,Russia.
The Republican Base will not need to be lectured on how to groom Rudy
If they go with the Conservative pick....its a suicide like something the U.S. Navy saw off Okinawa in 1945.
Run to Win,...in 08
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.