Giuliani's Pre-9/11 Record Should Erase Rightest Doubts

Hunan Events ^ | 3/16/07 | Deroy Murdock

[areafiftyone]

The same Beltway experts who declared Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) the GOP frontrunner, even as he under-polled fellow presidential contender Rudolph W. Giuliani, now parrot equally dodgy concepts. When Republicans meet “the real Rudy,” they will abandon New York’s former mayor like cattle fleeing a burning barn. Then, the wobbly Washington wisdom continues, Giuliani’s three marriages, and his less-than-solidly right-wing views on gays, guns, and gametes will torpedo his buoyant presidential hopes.

These seers now detect unhappiness with the GOP aspirants. They cite a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in which 26% of Republican primary voters were dissatisfied with Giuliani, McCain, and former Massachusetts governor Willard Mitt Romney, among others. However, 56% called these choices satisfactory. This mirrors the 57%of conservative Republicans who preferred Giuliani, versus 31% for McCain. More broadly, Republicans backed Giuliani 38% to McCain’s 24, former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s 10, Romney’s 8, and 2% each for Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

But what if voters like Giuliani better upon understanding his pre-9-11 performance? Educating Republicans on his complete mayoral record -- and soon -- may be Giuliani’s best bet for extinguishing lingering grumbling about his candidacy.

I recently visited Baltimore, Charlotte, Richmond, Salem, Oregon; Seattle, and Johnstown, Pennsylvania, mainly to deliver speeches sponsored by Young America’s Foundation. I conversed with conservative activists, College Republican leaders, university professors, and think-tank scholars, among others.

These Americans vividly remember Giuliani emerging from the ashes of September 11, like a latter-day Churchill rising from the rubble of the London Blitz. However, these involved and informed citizens knew startlingly little about Giuliani’s other mayoral achievements:

• Through robust policing, Giuliani drove overall crime down 56.1%, while chopping homicides 66.6%, from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001.

• Following national trends, abortions on Giuliani’s watch dropped 16.9%, while taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23%.

• Gotham’s foster-care population fell 38% as Giuliani helped loving families adopt 17,804 boys and girls.

• By fighting fraud and finding work for legitimate beneficiaries, Giuliani cut welfare rolls 58%, starting two years before federal welfare reform. Giuliani renamed welfare offices “Job Centers.”

• Giuliani privatized 23,625 previously confiscated, city-owned dwellings, 78% of supply, benefiting family and individual homeowners and tenants.

• Giuliani dumped Gotham’s 20% set-aside and 10% overbid bonus for minority and female contractors. “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination,” he explained. He initiated this on his 24th day in office, far exceeding any colorblindness legislation Congress even debated during the 12-year “Republican Revolution.”

• Giuliani’s $10 million Charter School Improvement Fund helped 3,286 pupils in 17 new charter schools, up from $0 and zero campuses in 1997. He ended tenure for school principals, so slackers could be sacked. He also stopped social promotion; students needed to complete grade-level work to matriculate.

• Ex-pornography mecca Times Square now welcomes families, tourists, and locals for fully clothed musicals like “The Lion King” and “Mary Poppins.”

Beyond these socially conservative victories, Giuliani governed as a Reaganesque supply-sider:

• Giuliani scrapped three taxes and slashed 20 others, lowering Gotham’s tax burden by 17% and saving individual and business taxpayers $9.8 billion.

• While inflation averaged 3.9%, Giuliani’s average spending grew 2.9% annually. If the departed GOP Congress were that fiscally disciplined, the next federal budget would be $2.275 trillion -- $625 billion cheaper than proposed.

• While hiring 12% more cops and 12.8% more teachers, Giuliani sliced other positions 17.2%. Overall, municipal headcount fell 3.1%.

Rudy got this done thanks largely to a management style that he described Wednesday at a $2 million Manhattan fundraiser: “I’m impatient and single-minded about my goals.”

Giuliani’s legacy has earned the endorsements of such screaming liberals as President Bush’s former solicitor general, Ted Olson, Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), and Rep. Pete Sessions (R.-Tex.) -- both proud owners of 100% ratings from the National Right to Life Committee.

Before Giuliani’s enemies caricature him as a divorce-driven, abortion-peddling, gun-grabbing transvestite, he should familiarize Republicans with his mayoral accomplishments. From Westwood to Washington’s echo chamber, Rudy Giuliani and his supporters should specify how he rescued America’s largest left-wing city through Reaganite social and economic reforms.

---

Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

[Calpernia]

Yes, GO RUDY: to Naples, that is.

[pissant]

Boy oh boy. WHY do you think Romney and McCain both are trying to pass themselves off as anti Roe crusaders? Why do you think Rudy has been twisting himself into a pretzel saying now he supports the Hyde amendment, changing his stance on PBA and ASSURING us (as you are doing) that Scalia and Alito are the cat's meow of judges? Why do you think such stalwart pro lifers like Santorum and Allen where beaten by...you guessed it, pro lifers. Why do you think a staunch anti-Roe gal like the gorgeous Michelle Bachman could handily win in Minnesota against a media darling candidate. Sure there are counter examples, but they do not make your compelling case. And for the record, Bush is THE most pro life candidate we've had in a long time. He uses the words "sanctity of life" and the "value of life" instead of the term "abortion". But everyone on both sides have been very clear since 1999 where he stands.

I noticed you didn't address the 2nd amendment part of my argument. How many senators and congressman ran on anti-gun platforms in 06? 04? 02? It has become a dem albatross, so they quit doing it, even going so far as to tell the congresscritters from safe big city seats to not chirp about it, so as not to affect the party nationwide.

And Bush is not pro civil union. He is anti gay marriage, and wants to amend the constitution to enshrine that. And he says he is OPPOSED to civil unions, but its not the feds job to interfere with other arrangents short of marriage that the states pass.

[gdani]

The Rule of Rudybots:

1) Anything bad he did before doesn't matter. It's in the past. Quit talking about it.

2) Anything good he did before does matter. It should be celebrated daily.

[Alberta's Child]

Let's go through each one of these . . .

1. Iraq . . . I'll consider this a "Not Applicable," since Rudy Giuliani has been steadfastly silent on this issue in recent weeks and will make every attempt to go through the entire campaign without even mentioning it at all. Iraq is going to be a huge albatross around the neck of any GOP candidate in 2008,

2. Iran . . . You can give him a 1 if you'd like, but nobody has any idea about what his specific ideas on this issue are. Anyone can stand up there and say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons without giving any particular points about how to deal with the issue effectively.

3. Gun control . . . I'd give him a -1 if possible (since he is one of the most radical anti-gun zealots ever to hold public office in the U.S.), but a 0 will have to do.

4. Limited government . . . No way he deserves a 1 on this, since New York City's government was even bigger when he left office than it was on the day of his inauguration. I'll give him a 1/2 on this just because his ability to reduce the growth of NYC's bloated government ran against the grain of history in that place.

5. Crime . . . You've given him a 1, but I'll be generous and call this "Not Applicable." No candidate who has proudly violated a Federal law for the sake of political expediency can ever stand up and be a credible "law and order" candidate. For a former Federal prosecutor to take a position like this is disgraceful and idiotic.

6. Health care . . . He may talk a good game, but you never heard Rudy Giuliani do anything other than champion the notion of government-paid health care -- especially when the "government" doing the paying was either the State of New York or the Federal government -- when he was mayor of New York. I'll give him a "Not Applicable" on this one just to be generous.

7. Domestic terrorism . . . Give him a big, fat 0 on this one. I can't even be generous on this, because he fails on two specific points: A) his sole contribution to the effort against domestic terrorism has been the recommendation for political hack and convicted criminal Bernard Kerik for the U.S. Homeland Security post; and B) in the one specific pre-9/11 case in which he was faced with an act of "domestic terrorism" while mayor of New York City (the attack against tourists on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997 by a Palestinian terrorist), he refused to even call the attack an act of terrorism -- and in fact immediately built it into a campaign prop for his anti-gun crusade.

8. Freedom . . . I'll give him a 0 on this one, too. Even many of his strongest supporters will privately (or even publicly) admit that he's an authoritarian A-hole.

9. Taxes . . . You give him a 1. I'll give him a 1/2 at best, mainly for personal reasons (I'd prefer to give him a 0). He may have cut 23 different taxes in New York City, but he refused to cut one specific tax that would have applied to me (and violated one of his key campaign promises in the process), and went to great lengths to challenge another New York State tax cut in court (the elimination of the commuter tax by the Pataki administration) that directly applied to me. Most New York City residents and workers did not see any real reduction in their tax burden under his administration.

10. Deficit . . . You give him a 0, but I'd consider this "Not Applicable." He had very little control over the revenue side of New York City's revenue/spending balance, and I consider Items #9 and #10 on this list to be a combined issue anyway.

. . .

So there you have it. As far as I'm concerned, on the issues YOU selected he grades at 1 out of 5, with 5 Not Applicables because of either a lack of solid information on a specific issue or because of radically different elements in his background and/or public statements on these issues.

If you want to add 1 point to his grade for personal "gut instinct" reasons on one or two issues (i.e., turn two of the N/A grades to 0.5, or one of them to 1), then you've got a guy who grades out at 33% at best -- and that's on the issues YOU selected.

[ilgipper]

I liked Rudy long before 9-11 for what he accomplished in NYC. 9-11 was just when the media stopped hating him as much.

[Alberta's Child]

If Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee in 2008, watch how quickly and strongly BOTH major party candidates fight for recognition as the loudest critic of the Bush administration on the so-called "war on terror."

Remember -- you heard it here first.

[Unicorn]

I do.

[pissant]

That may be so. I'm working, as are you to prevent him ever getting the opportunity to sniff the oval office.

I only support conservative hawks, not liberal ones. The libs are known to flip flop at the drop of a hat.

[LtdGovt]

Boy oh boy. WHY do you think Romney and McCain both are trying to pass themselves off as anti Roe crusaders? Why do you think Rudy has been twisting himself into a pretzel saying now he supports the Hyde amendment, changing his stance on PBA and ASSURING us (as you are doing) that Scalia and Alito are the cat's meow of judges?

Please... they're trying to win a Republican primary, and most Republicans (especially Republican primary voters) are pro-life. In the GOP primary, a pro-life position is a winner. In the general election, not so much.

Why do you think such stalwart pro lifers like Santorum and Allen where beaten by...you guessed it, pro lifers.

Jim Webb is pro-choice. And Santorum was beaten by 20%. I think that even if we attribute part of that percentage to Bob Casey being pro-life, my educated guess would be that a pro-choicer would have beaten Santorum too.

Why do you think a staunch anti-Roe gal like the gorgeous Michelle Bachman could handily win in Minnesota against a media darling candidate.

Because it was a Republican-leaning district, and Patty Wetterling ran a poor campaign. If being anti-Roe is such a winner, how do you explain Mark Kennedy losing by 20 percentage points? It isn't that simple, of course. Kennedy didn't lose because of his pro-life position. And Bachmann did not win because of her pr-life position.

Sure there are counter examples, but they do not make your compelling case. And for the record, Bush is THE most pro life candidate we've had in a long time. He uses the words "sanctity of life" and the "value of life" instead of the term "abortion". But everyone on both sides have been very clear since 1999 where he stands.

I don't see why Bush is that pro-life. He opposes the so-called Human Life Amendment, which was supported by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. And the fact that he doesn't wear his anti-abortion position on his sleeve, indicates that he doesn't think that it's a political winner.

I noticed you didn't address the 2nd amendment part of my argument.

Because Rudy's record on the 2nd Amendment is indefensible.

And he says he is OPPOSED to civil unions

Please do quote him. I remember one or two Bush quotes that said that he favors civil unions, at least come up with one quote that says that he opposes them.

[FreeReign]

While inflation averaged 3.9%, Giuliani’s average spending grew 2.9% annually. If the departed GOP Congress were that fiscally disciplined, the next federal budget would be $2.275 trillion -- $625 billion cheaper than proposed.

Newt, Hastert, Hunter and all their Republican and Democrat buddies in Congress(and the W.H.) should be so fiscally conservative.

[FreeReign]

Limited government . . . No way he deserves a 1 on this, since New York City's government was even bigger when he left office than it was on the day of his inauguration.

Are you trying to be objective? Spending every year was about 1% less than the rate of inflation.

[LtdGovt]

That's your interpretation of his statements. Of course, you try to be as negative as you can, while I did my best to be fair. Being President is very, very differnt from being a mayor. And I hope that in 2010, we can have a debate about what a good President Rudy has been. I think you'll be surprised.

Of course this is about abortion. People who oppose abortion and view it as murder, view Rudy as someone who is supporting legal murder. Thus, they are more likely to regard him as an evil person who is trying to trick conservatives into electing someone who will govern as a liberal. I don't think that's the case.

[showme_the_Glory]

As for Giuliani, he has demonstrated great skill as an administrator of a cesspool. Above all else, that's what qualifies him to be president, .........

Mayor of the cesspool, good job for him. Leave the running of the country for men with slightly higher qualifications.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't support any "hawk" who can't clearly enunciate what this country's objectives in foreign military campaigns should be.

[pissant]

Or, I'm guessing, those who clearly annunciate them, but you don't agree with their views. Bush's objective is to turn two hostile states in the muslim world into domocratic allies, which he has done. The purpose for staying after the toppling of the hostile regimes is to give those allied gov'ts the ability to stand on their own two feet.

Reasoned arguments can be made that it is bad policy, but you cannot convince me the objective is not clear.

[massadvj]

The country IS a cesspool. Who better to manage it than someone with experience? Senators and Congressmen have zero administrative experience. You are asking me to hire someone less qualified because he is more in tune with me philosophically. I wouldn't do that in my business, and I see no reason to do it with my country.

No, Rudy has demonstrated that he is the most effective roto rooter man in the country and so I say give him the job.

[Alberta's Child]

That's not the only issue. A candidate's position on abortion is an accurate indication of where that candidate stands on a number of different issues -- including issues related to constitutional law, the role of government in the lives of citizens, etc.

Gun control is another "indicator" issue . . . and perhaps an even stronger one than abortion in the minds of most conservatives.

Anyone who fails on these two issues -- especially someone who fails as badly as Rudy Giuliani does -- has no credibility as a conservative.

That's your interpretation of his statements.

I don't know what statements you're referring to, but everything I've ever cited in my posts related to Giuliani's campaign was spoken by the guy in plain English.

Of course, you try to be as negative as you can, while I did my best to be fair.

I didn't try to be negative at all. In fact, I went out of my way to assign "Not Applicable" grades on some issues where I personally would have given him a 0.

Being President is very, very differnt from being a mayor.

Of course. But don't ever use this excuse to whitewash a candidate's track record -- because it applies across the board. Being president is very different from being governor of Arkansas . . . being president is very different from being a Frankenstein-looking gigolo from Massachusetts . . . being president is very different from being a jug-eared Muslim senator from Illinois, etc.

[showme_the_Glory]

The country IS a cesspool.

Which country are you from? I live in the US. It's not a cesspool here.

[massadvj]

Actually, it is not a cesspool where I live in Lancaster County, PA either. Nor is it at our winter getaway in Canyon Lake, Texas.

But, generally, I think the country is a cultural cesspool of decadence, consumed by secular consumerism. That is the state of the urban and suburban majority, and they will not support a candidate like Rick Santorum, Jim Talent or George Allen. That much is as clear to me as the nose on my face.

[jmc813]

You post the SAME things on ANY thread

I needed a shot of irony. Thanks.