Why not keep an open mind??? ...
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.
"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"
Good post!
I think that site is defunct, so I would suppose not.
Well, your first mistake is reading any value into polls 18 months prior to the election.
If the early polls were accurate, GOP would have lost in 1980 and won in 1992, and Howard Dean would be President today.
Funny how polls change.
I disagree with your assumption and conclusion, not because I'm a genius prognosticator, but because all these details have been well-known and haven't gained traction.
"Rudy is likely to do something about the border"
Yes, let the illegals in.
His position is the same as McCain/Kennedy.
If you care about border security, Duncan Hunter is your man.
"Rudy knows money....thats a big plus"
AHEM. Mitt Romney is a venture capitalist who built up an entire company worth hundreds of millions, and then was recruited to save the SLC Olympics, saving them millions.
Then he became a tax-cutting Governor in Massachusetts.
You want a 'money man' who knows money and how to create jobs, it isnt Rudy, its Mitt Romney!
"Who has speaking points to rival Queen Hitlery?"
Newt.
"will keep funding for the Pentagon and secret Black opps programs which are very neccesary !!"
ANd so would every Republican, especially Duncan Hunter and McCain who have been there for decades doing just that in Congress.
"He is best placed to handle whats coming.....Iran,China,Russia."
Bizarre claim. Rudy has zero experience in Federal office and foreign service.
Mitt Romney is speaking out on Iran articulately and well.
"If they go with the Conservative pick....its a suicide like something the U.S. Navy saw off Okinawa in 1945."
Nonsense. There is a lot that goes into the best candidate - character, competence, and vision - and a conservative vision is *not* a bad thing. It's what won the past two presidential elections!!!
"Rudy will not let the liberal/social agenda run amok"
You have zero evidence to back that up.
"I disagree with your assumption and conclusion, not because I'm a genius prognosticator, but because all these details have been well-known and haven't gained traction."
Well known by whom? Only among the inside baseball politics addicts like us. Not by the masses.
I agree..................RUN TO WIN IN '08! :-)
If you care about electability, you should be supporting Mitt Romney:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=cb4249a8-b6b8-49b6-8256-fa3cb41e7571
"TO START WITH THE OBVIOUS, MITT ROMNEY IS THE most conservative candidate in the field who has, at present, a chance of winning. "
Giuliani is the only one that beats all the leading Dem candidates and he is also the Republican front runner.
Romney is a distant third and has no chance against any of the Dem candidates.
Looking at Pataki's performance, in retrospect there can't be much of a criticism. Pataki was more for his self interest. The NY Republican party has imploded during his tenure. My recollection is that Rudy's support of Cuomo was personal against Pataki as opposed to political affinity.
I am a New Yorker who has experienced Rudy Guiliani first hand. I know that I will comfortably support the Republican candidate. We cannot repeat the 2006 mistake where Republicans did not come out to vote.
I am fine with conservatives not supporting Guiliani in the primary (although I am a strong supporter.) Romney seems to be okay with what little I know about him. If he beats Guiliani in the primary so be it. We must, and I will, support the Republican candidate in 2008 else risk Hillary (or whoever else wins the Rat nomination.)
"Looking at Pataki's performance, in retrospect there can't be much of a criticism. "
LOL. Touche. Actually in 1994 Pataki was running against a failed big-spending liberal. Guliani had supported other liberals (going back to McGovern in 1972).
"We cannot repeat the 2006 mistake where Republicans did not come out to vote."
We risk that if we continue to ignore the base voters.
My mind is open on Romney. As the primaries approach, I'll start paying closer attention. Its too early right now, and my gut is for Rudy because I've known about him and have watched him for 20 years. But I'm open-minded.
Why not keep an open mind??? ...
Romney may be a great guy -- but being a Mormon pretty mudh ensures that he could't beat the Dem candidate. The "swing voters" are just not going to vote for a Mormon.
Giuliani was a McGovernite? Good Lord Almighty...this just gets more bizarre by the day. I'd appreciate any links or other information on that. I'm also putting out an appeal for a list of Giuliani's 100 judicial picks and their party affiliations when nominated and before they were nominated. If the rumors are true, and Giuliani picked almost all Dems, his whole "I'll pick constructionist judges" schtick will go from the zero credibility it has now, to minus fifty.
"BTW, part of my point is that I dont think Rudy can beat Hillary! Your entire premise is false! She'll be "Mrs Slickster" to you after her goons dish the dirt on Rudy's divorces and affairs, and her phony 'genuflections' to moral piety will be enough to fool muddled but morally inclined."
I do not agree that Rudy won't beat Hillary even with considering the press being on her side if she wins the Rat nomination. What state will Rudy lose that Bush won? The only concern that I have, and will work hard to fix, is if conservatives get fed up and stay home - no rationale conservative can vote for Hillary for President. I believe that the anti-Hillary fervor would yield to a broken glass voting scenario for conservatives to vote against Hillary. (They would walk barefoot over broken glass to vote against Hillary.) This may be a kneejerk reaction now but the comparison will be dramatic.
What dirt on Rudy is possible that won't stick worse to Hillary? Rudy will bring more previous Democratic votes to Republican than vice versa. At best for Hillary is a lower Republican turnout. I personally do not see it. The year 2006 is not a good analogy. There people did not come out to support the Republicans based upon their abysmal performance in the Congress. When voting for president, the stakes are enormous and the comparison could not be more different.
This issue about divorces mattering might stick against some candidates. Not Hillary. Her right wing conspiracy viewpoint and her reaction to her husbands antics will neutralize this issue. The comparison of viewpoints are dramatic. Perhaps even more importantly, Rudy talks like someone you can relate to. He is straightforward. Hillary is pure phoniness. The difference in styles is so dramatic, that the country would relate much better to Rudy.
Gosh, is that pic for real?
Romney is a bit too blow-dried too. Rudy looks and talks rough - and I think this will play well vis-a-vis the WOT.
That is where the man has 'Gravitas'...
Hitlary the demon-possessed Stalinist will drive the conservatives to the polls the same way that the sunset brings the bats out of the caves around Austin, TX....and if you've ever seen it, you KNOW what I'm talking' 'bout!!
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.