Conservative think tank lends helping hand to Giuliani

Monterey Herald ^ | March 29, 2007 | William Douglas

[FairOpinion]

In his drive to be the first politician to go from City Hall to the White House, Republican Rudolph Giuliani is being schooled on issues by a conservative think tank that helped him dramatically reshape New York City's public policy during his mayoralty.

Giuliani is once again leaning on the expertise of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative brain factory. It was founded nearly 30 years ago by Antony Fisher, who was a mentor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a friend to Reagan administration CIA chief William Casey.

Before Giuliani's first successful mayoral run in 1993, he sat through hundreds of hours of seminars set up by institute members, where he embraced a "zero-tolerance" approach to crime and a tough-love welfare policy that became hallmarks of his administration.

Giuliani says the new approach contributed to the huge crime drop that New York experienced while he was mayor. Homicides in the city plummeted from 1,927 in 1993 to 671 in 2000, according to FBI statistics. Major crimes - which include aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, rape - fell by 57 percent

Fans of the institute say it lives up to its motto of "Turning Intellect into Influence" by forcefully advocating a conservative free-market agenda of tax cuts, privatization, school choice and strict law enforcement - and by aligning itself with rising political stars such as Giuliani to carry it out.

[KATIE-O]

You people are nuts. You'll go down the tubes with someone who cannot get elected like Duncan Hunter (Duncan who?) on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc and let Hillary get elected who, no don't tell me, is pro choice and supports homo marriages. The real issues are taxes, the war on terror, immigration and judge nominations. If Rudy is the nominee he will be strong on those things.
Or you can just not vote and we'll end up with a POS like the Congress we have now because people stayed home.




Very logical opinion. Hopefully they will decide they are Republicans first and not allow Hillary to take the White House. The very thought makes me nauseous.

[JohnnyZ]

Did the think tank tell him to stop grabbing guns?

I think they suggested ways to more efficiently disarm the citizenry and supplement tax receipts with fees and fines for firearm possession.

It's part of the 'broken window' strategy, inspired when a grandma shot at a home invader and missed, shattering her bay windows. Rudy siezed her gun, billed her for cleaning up the glass on the sidewalk, and locked her up for attempted murder.

Then he married the guy who broke into her home.



I'm not sure where that story went from fact to fiction. That's the frightening thing.

[JohnnyZ]

Hopefully they will decide they are Republicans first

Silly Katie-o.

I'm Republican for a REASON.

BECAUSE I'm conservative.

BECAUSE I'm Catholic.

Which makes me a Republican 3rd at best.

As a Catholic I cannot and will not vote for Rudy or Romney. As a conservative voting for any of the Rudy McRomney trio is varying degrees of distasteful, though I could get drunk and vote for McCain (still not the other two).

"Republican-first" voters who support candidates who have very little connection to the Republican Party platform.... what is that? How much of an empty-headed fool can one be?

[tumblindice]

"Being a realist, Rudy . . . "

Yeah, you just can't fence the entire border. It's not realistic. And you can't round up all the illegal aliens and deport them, not 12 million or more.
The compassionate conservatives tell us that we can, however, identify our foreign friends for the purpose of sending them home for a little while, and to make sure that they pay a fine and, oh yeah--back taxes, too.
And they plan a rodeo for the purpose of bringing them into our gringo classes to teach them English and US civics. Eager minds anxious to soak up our culture! Si, como no!
And we are told we can supervise them to make sure that all 12-15 million of these unexpected, illegal permanent visitors are complying with these minor pre-conditions to the real goal: reaching the point where we can simply say,
"Ah ta hell with it: All-y all-y in come free!", and then we can brace ourselves for millions more (3 million in `86; 12 million in `06--gee, who knows how many in 10 years?) "undocumented immigrant guest workers", as well as their families--all these new citizens who successfully sneaked/skulked across our border and are currently living in violation of our laws.
We're going to give them citizenship and they are going to vote by gawd Republican. (Or join service unions.)

But it's not realistic--it defies common sense and it's impractical, as well--to have people we pay for the precise purpose (ICE) simply ask them (OK, here's an ID clue: as a rule they have nice tans, are of moderate height, black hair/eyes, tend towards stockiness and speak broken English) for their immigration cards. It's just too tough to deport illegal aliens home, according to law, then start admitting legal workers who follow the rules like legal immigrants from other countries (generally having high school educations and skills, and leprosy-free as well as uninfected with other 3rd world horrors) and enforce USC Code Title 8 as if it were, say, the Internal Revenue Code.

OK, now the 2nd Amendment . . . . Rudy just wants to regulate gun ownership. That's entirely reasonable.
Batteries . . . winding . . . down

[KATIE-O]

Hopefully they will decide they are Republicans first
Silly Katie-o.

I'm Republican for a REASON.

BECAUSE I'm conservative.

BECAUSE I'm Catholic.

Which makes me a Republican 3rd at best.

As a Catholic I cannot and will not vote for Rudy or Romney. As a conservative voting for any of the Rudy McRomney trio is varying degrees of distasteful, though I could get drunk and vote for McCain (still not the other two).

"Republican-first" voters who support candidates who have very little connection to the Republican Party platform.... what is that? How much of an empty-headed fool can one be?




If you want to discuss issues without the bullying and name calling, let me know. And if you can actually vote for a crazy, Kennedy-loving Rino dude like McCain, you should look in the mirror when you ask the question, "how much of an empty headed fool can one be?"


Go Rudy!!

[KATIE-O]

"Being a realist, Rudy . . . "

Yeah, you just can't fence the entire border. It's not realistic. And you can't round up all the illegal aliens and deport them, not 12 million or more.
The compassionate conservatives tell us that we can, however, identify our foreign friends for the purpose of sending them home for a little while, and to make sure that they pay a fine and, oh yeah--back taxes, too.
And they plan a rodeo for the purpose of bringing them into our gringo classes to teach them English and US civics. Eager minds anxious to soak up our culture! Si, como no!
And we are told we can supervise them to make sure that all 12-15 million of these unexpected, illegal permanent visitors are complying with these minor pre-conditions to the real goal: reaching the point where we can simply say,
"Ah ta hell with it: All-y all-y in come free!", and then we can brace ourselves for millions more (3 million in `86; 12 million in `06--gee, who knows how many in 10 years?) "undocumented immigrant guest workers", as well as their families--all these new citizens who successfully sneaked/skulked across our border and are currently living in violation of our laws.
We're going to give them citizenship and they are going to vote by gawd Republican. (Or join service unions.)

But it's not realistic--it defies common sense and it's impractical, as well--to have people we pay for the precise purpose (ICE) simply ask them (OK, here's an ID clue: as a rule they have nice tans, are of moderate height, black hair/eyes, tend towards stockiness and speak broken English) for their immigration cards. It's just too tough to deport illegal aliens home, according to law, then start admitting legal workers who follow the rules like legal immigrants from other countries (generally having high school educations and skills, and leprosy-free as well as uninfected with other 3rd world horrors) and enforce USC Code Title 8 as if it were, say, the Internal Revenue Code.

OK, now the 2nd Amendment . . . . Rudy just wants to regulate gun ownership. That's entirely reasonable.
Batteries . . . winding . . . down





Hope ya feel better now. :)

[Ultra Sonic 007]

You're pushing a liberal in the primaries. THE PRIMARIES.

And you wonder why people are upset?

[FairOpinion]

The purpose of the primaries is to select the person who is most likely to WIN, by BEATING the OPPONENT, NOT to select someone who makes you "feel good" but gets trounced in the general election by the opponent.

Obviously you either haven't figured that out yet, or you are paddling this nonsense to the gullible ones, because you want Hillary to win.

[MEGoody]

Doesn't change my views in the primary. Rudy is just too socially liberal for me.

[FairOpinion]

"Rudy is just too socially liberal for me."

And Hillary won't be, when because of misguided votes we may end up with an unelectable Republican candidate, who gets beaten like a drum by Hillary?

Can't you think two steps ahead and see the obvious?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Go Hillary! Bring that big bad Universal Healthcare on baby! Confiscate my income!

[stockpirate]

I am not pro Rudy, but I would have to vote for him to keep a democrat out of the WH.

[MamaB]

So, you will be happy with a liberal in office? Well, I won't support him.

[MamaB]

Neither is Rudy.

[MamaB]

Yeah, go away.

[MamaB]

No, we are conservatives first and dear old Rudy does not pass the test.

[MamaB]

Dear old Rudy is just as bad.

[MamaB]

That is a very tired line. I do not want Hillary to win but I sure do not support Rudy.

[MamaB]

Yeah, the obvious is that Rudy is a liberal.