Posted on 02/28/2007 9:56:17 AM PST by Peach
Not since Teddy Roosevelt took on Tammany Hall a century ago has a New York politician closely linked to urban reform looked like presidential timber. But today ex–New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sits at or near the top of virtually every poll of potential 2008 presidential candidates. Already, Giuliani’s popularity has set off a “stop Rudy” movement among cultural conservatives, who object to his three marriages and his support for abortion rights, gay unions, and curbs on gun ownership. Some social conservatives even dismiss his achievement in reviving New York before 9/11.
An August story on the website Right Wing News, for instance, claims that Giuliani governed Gotham from “left of center.” Similarly, conservatives have been feeding the press a misleading collection of quotations by and about Giuliani, on tax policy and school choice issues, assembled to make him look like a liberal.
But in a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering.
The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26604
"I honestly believe Al Gore is more conservative than Rudy"
You could go see a shrink. No shame in that.
The feds violate their own laws, for crying out loud, and Rudy extended what was already in place by law under the previous Mayor. Or it might have even been the mayor before that.
LOL. Well, I'm sort of a veteran, also. But I do find the calibre of debate on here much lower after 9/11 (whether I agree or disagree) than it was before. There are some great new people, and some bad veterans (many think I qualify for that), but in general, the level has fallen. But that's grist for another mill.
I agree with your post 100%. Some folks linked older articles (pre 9/11) and they were an interesting although rather sad read. Because the level of debate and discussion and research was much, much higher than it is today.
There's a web site which track internet usage; I've forgotten the name. It's been posted that usage at FR is down, although I haven't gone to those links to see myself, and I think we can fully understand why the "ratings" so to speak would be so much lower than previous years.
Why are you slamming me with anti-Rudy material? I never mentioned his name.
But since you brought it up, said another way, the real vitriol and flames so far seems to be more over social issues rather than fiscal ones. And that pretty much covers all the candidates so far, I was simply pointing that out.
Haven't seen any real fight break out over such topics like balanced budgets, or who lowers taxes more. ;-)
And I meant to add, further to your good post, that the new rules in place, permitting spam which includes graphic pictures of partial birth abortion, will do nothing to enhance this site's credibility and will in fact turn many conservatives away.
As well, last night there was a thread where the words queer, homo, and more were thrown around like so much confetti. Freepers used to be banned for using heated rhetoric like that, but now the forum seems to encourage it.
There are many people who are wishing to disassociate themselves from that, and with good reason.
Here. Let me...
Here's the TRUTH about the first terrorist attack in New York City during Giuliani's term as mayor. On 23 February 1997 an Islamic terrorist opened fire on the observation platform of the Empire State Building in New York City. This was a terrorist attack and is even listed as a "significant terrorist attack" on the U.S. State Department's website. How did Giuliani react to the first Islamic terrorist attack while he was mayor? He took the opportunity to immediately and openly politicize the event to advance his and the Democrats' agenda for national gun control and to praise Bill Clinton's gun control efforts.Here's the relevant info and quotes:
U.S. State Department - Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Mayor's Message, 2 March 1997:
"Good morning. It has been a week since the terrible tragedy that happened last Sunday at the Empire State Building. And even as we grieve for the families and our hearts and prayers go out to them, perhaps we can use this senseless tragedy to re-energize the fight for gun control."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Major Addresses, Citizen's Crime Commission, 6 March 1997:
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.Two days after the terrorist attack, Giuliani wasn't assessing further Islamic terrorist threats or preparing the city against terrorist attack or publically denouncing Islamic terrorism. No, instead he was in a press conference at City Hall with a Democrat gun control nut (Rep. Carolyn McCarthy) by his side calling for national gun control.[snip]
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control. And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
[snip]
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements. ... I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.
[snip]
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
This is the TRUTH that must be told about the February 1997 terrorist attack in New York City. This is how Giuliani deals with terrorist attacks. He blamed the guns, called for violating constitutional rights for EVERYONE, and wanted to take away our own individual defense against further terrorist attacks. More disturbing is that he would openly politicize a terrorist attack to advance a liberal agenda.
Even if Giuliani didn't have all of the other 100-ton social liberal and personal baggage he would carry as the GOP nominee for President, his reaction to this terrorist attack is more than enough reason for Republicans to seriously consider looking for a better candidate.
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2001 |
Release #268-01 |
| Contact: | Sunny Mindel / Matthew Higgins |
(212) 788-2958 |
View Mayor's
|
| Tom Antenen (DCPI) | (212) 374-6700 |
|
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik today announced that more than 3,000 guns taken off New York City streets will soon be turned into scrap metal. The New York Police Department recovered the guns over the last several months through a number of channels and the total includes guns that were used in the commission of crimes. The guns will be transported to an undisclosed location, where they will be smelted and the metal recycled. NYPD personnel will monitor every aspect of the entire process, until every gun has been destroyed.
"The Police Department's dramatic success in reducing crime is due in large part to its corresponding success in removing guns from City streets," the Mayor said. "More than 90,000 guns have been seized since 1994, and shootings have plummeted more than 74 percent. The NYPD's gun seizure success is also reflected in the murder rate, which has plummeted 65 percent since 1994, and is down another 11 percent this year over last year. The NYPD has also ensured that thousands of guns can never be used to commit a crime by destroying them and putting the metal to good use. Now, another 3,000 guns have been taken out of circulation -- permanently."
Police Commissioner Kerik said, "The destruction of these firearms is a very tangible reminder of the intensive efforts undertaken by the NYPD and the City to remove guns from our streets. Every gun taken out of circulation is one less gun that can be used to shoot an innocent citizen, gun down a hero cop, or carelessly end up in the hands of a child."
Including the guns to be destroyed following today's announcement, more than 7,371 guns will have been smelted this year to date. In 2000, the Police Department sent 8,278 guns to be smelted and turned into scrap metal.
www.nyc.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000
Release #238-00
Contact: Sunny Mindel / Michael Anton (212) 788-2958
Lorna Goodman (Law Department) (212) 788-0999
Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with such features as trigger locks and "personalization" measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon. "This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people," Mayor Giuliani said. "What's worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed."
Council Speaker Vallone said, "More than 30,000 people, including 4,200 children, die every year in the U.S. from firearms-more people than in any other country in the world. I join with the Mayor in this lawsuit to send a message to gun manufacturers that New York City will hold them accountable for their reckless and irresponsible practices."
The suit seeks an as yet unspecified amount of damages for the many ways in which these illegal practices and illegal guns harm New York City and its residents-including, for instance, the $17 million per year spent by the City Health and Hospitals Corporation treating gunshot wounds.
Defendants named in the suit include most major gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers currently operating the United States, or who export large numbers of guns to the United States.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the City of New York, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, City Council Speaker Peter F. Vallone, and the Health and Hospitals Corporation. The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us
CLICK HERE for YouTube video of Press Conference.
You may not like what Rudy`s friendly think tankers over at the Manhattan Institute have to say about his entire final and closing record as Mayor of NYCity. First and foremost, they told the truth. No falsehoods. According to the MI analysis, Rudy was NO fiscal conservative. Period.
You must be one of those soccer-moms. At least thats how your post reads.
You didn't have to. The implication was crystal clear.
And pointing out that Rudy was no fiscal conservative, is not slamming YOU. Get real. Its telling the truth about Rudy`s liberal record as Mayor of NYCity.
I keep asking this simple question of a couple of Rudy's biggest supporters on this site (4 times so far), and they haven't answered me yet. If Rudy is such a big Conservative, answering this one question shouldn't be so hard, should it?
Who is "we" noob? Note to the noobie: there isn't much difference between Hillary and Rudy. Your use of the propaganda technique of choosing between the lesser of two evils won't work here.
You should just lurk for awhile, until you can get the hang of posting without making yourself look like an ass on a conservative forum.
I was thinking volume primarily, and then there is the whole "stuck in a loop defending the "electable" RINO against the eeeeeeevil FR conservatives" thing.
After 4 illegal aliens raped a Queens woman in 2003, Mayor Bloomberg seemed to be able to sign an Executive Order (EO 34) which ended Rudy Giuliani's 'Sanctuary City' policy. And the Mayor before Giuliani wasn't the one who actually sued the Federal Government to try to be allowed to continue his sanctuary city policies despite new federal laws.
Hey, look at it this way, A.R. if he wins in 2008 then we get a two-fer. He can fill both roles as President and First Lady-in-drag. That'll make us ALL very proud! ;-)
LOL!
It's a good article, Peach.
I can't help but wonder who these posters are that are pushing Guiliani. My guess is that they are:
New Yorkers
Next thing to it, residents of the Northeast.
Rinos.
Disgruntled McCain backers, who see their man isn't going to win, and are sliding over to someone who they see has similar views.
City boys (and girls), the gun issue doesn't mean as much to them as it does to us rednecks.
Non-religious types, Biblical values mean nothing to them. Probably never darken the doors of a church. If they do, it is one that makes no stand against immorality. On the liberal left religiously, in other words.
Are queers themselves. Truth be known, even if they aren't queer, they side with the log cabin queers.
Are evolutionists, agnostics, or outright atheists. Truth be known, they are the ones siding against Biblical creationism on the creation vs evolution threads.
Whatever these Guiliani pushers are, they aren't conservatives thats for sure!
Thanks for educating us all, signed up today rudybot.
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.