Posted on 04/03/2007 4:02:00 AM PDT by Liz
The Giuliani '08 juggernaut just ran head-on into Podhoretz's First and Last Law of Politics, namely: No politician seeking the nation's highest office can do as much damage to another as he can do to himself. --SNIP-- The question before us today is whether Rudy Giuliani committed a blunder of comparable proportions by consenting to a Barbara Walters request for a joint interview with him and his wife Judi - during the course of which he said, embarrassingly, that he would welcome her presence at Cabinet meetings and listen to her closely on issues relating to health care.
Until that moment, he had handled his presidential bid as perfectly as could be imagined......his four months of bliss came to an end when ABC News released the first snippets of the Walters interview last Thursday..... Walters moment only revealed that Rudy ......thought he could say something cute about his wife that really wasn't cute at all - seemed perhaps more about currying favor with her than about finding the appropriate balance between portraying a loving marriage and depicting a future presidency. Of course, what Rudy was doing with Barbara Walters was an effort....- to neutralize the damaging effect of his marital history by being open and clear and honest. He did that well.....then he muffed it.
News of the Walters interview began a 96-hour ordeal for Giuliani that included the leak of his grand-jury testimony in the case of his former police commissioner's ties to a crooked contractor - potentially his most serious liability - and the revelations that Judi Giuliani has actually been married more than twice and had worked for a medical-equipment firm that used (and thus killed) dogs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
To be fair? How can any freeper believe it? And to use it as a way to differentiate Rudy from GWB? Laughable.
You’ll be waiting forever for an answer. Great question, I may add.
“I am looking for a leader, not a social liberal groveller to every wrong politically-correct idea that came from the liberals. Wrong on abortion means not a good leader. Wrong on immigration means not a good leader. Wrong on Federal marriage Amendment means not a good leader. Social issues on the back burner? What, we cant find a PResident who can walk and chew gum at the same time?”
What leader, then, are you looking for since not a single viable candidate would affect any change whatsoever in any of these areas. Not Thompson, not McCain, not Romney. Sure they will talk about these issues—but all they could do as president would be to propose legislation to Congress or nominate judges for Congress to vote in. Nothing else.
These issues, therefore, involve more than what you seem to appreciate. They involve winning Congress in the next election. Unless the Congress returns to the GOP, you can kiss your issues goodbye. That’s just the political reality and right now the Democrats hold all the aces. They have more voter registrants this time around, more money, plenty of support from the media and a public that seems dispirited after eight years of Republican rule. Only a strong candidate at the top of the ticket—one who would appeal to blue and purple states—can turn this political climate around to our advantage. This means thinking outside the box—which most of you on this thread are not doing. It means thinking the unthinkable—selecting a candidate who would appeal across a wider spectrum—and win blue and purple states. Right now Rudy is leading in polls in NJ, CT, RI, OR, OH, FL, PA, MN. He is also extremely popular in CA. That’s a breathtaking advantage. Even a few of these bigger states would secure the Congress for the GOP.
So think about it. Also remember that people like Ted Olson and Steve Forbes are backing Rudy and that Rudy has pledged to nominate strict constructionists to the SC. Put that in perspective with his strong fiscally conservative, pro-military, anti-crime background.
“When you look at Rudy’s past record with regard to how he ran NYC, while he may have been a conservative there, his policies would be considered liberal in other parts of the country.”
This is not true. The real focus of his administration would win the plaudits of conservatives anywhere. He reduced crime 64% by instituting new techniques for crime-fighting and by hiring the right people. The murder rate alone dropped 67%. That’s astonishing. And he shut down the porn shops and pushed for school vouchers and fired school officials who weren’t sufficiently effective—all strongly conservative policy decisions. He pushed for smaller government, saving hundreds of millions of dollars by firing thousands of government employees and reorganizing the police force and transit authority and trash collection agencies. He cut taxes and levies over and over, saving billions for taxpayers. He cut NYC’s top income-tax rate by 20.6%. Local city taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7%. He cut the commercial-rent tax. He cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing. He cut the marriage penalty tax. He cut taxes on commercial rents and on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers. He privatized municipal assets, selling city-owned radio and television stations and divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to erase the City’s red ink. He cut NYC’s hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy’s tenure. Personal income increased 50%. Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1%.
Sure he opposed handgun ownership—but this was the mayor of one of the most crime-ridden cities in America. He has since backed off from this issue. Ditto with the abortion issue. He has pledged to nominate strict constructionists like Roberts and Alito—which is why a conservative icon like Ted Olson is supporting him.
“You just contradicted yourself.”
Not at all. Helping to get Republicans elected is not the same thing as recruiting Republicans. Follow the argument.
That's exactly what it is. And I see you still haven't untwisted your panties. ;)
LOL. You keep saying that, but you keep on responding to my "psots."
So this is "flirtin" to you, is it? Apparently, you're that pathetic guy at the party who interprets a woman's putdown as "oh, she really likes me."
Hint: she thinks you're a loser.
“And I see you still haven’t untwisted your panties.”
In fact, nothing’s twisted on me or in my arguments which are fairly cogent and fair-minded. It’s you who should check your underwear. You seem to be in a perpetual state of dire discomfort.
“Win, win, win, win. I would rather stand by my convictions and be able to sleep at night, than to be suckered into voting for someone who I cannot agree with on anything just because he has an R behind his name.”
You don’t support conservative values by losing elections. You and others on this thread may sincerely believe that you are standing by your convictions, but you are actually selling them out. I say this because if you can’t vote for someone who would beat the crap out of the Democrats, then there’s something wrong with your morality whether you realize this or not. The name of the game is to defeat the Democrats and elect as many Republicans as possible to the Congress in the next election. You don’t do that with a weak candidate, however righteous you may believe he is in his personal morality. You need a strong contender at the top of the ticket—someone who can win a few blue and purple states. You don’t want to hear this. Fine. But that doesn’t make you any less wrong from a political AND moral point of view.
Really? Then let me ask you a question. If Rudy is providing support to candidates in a primary, do you think he will support the more socially conservative ones, or ones who are socially liberal like himself?
LOL, you just can’t get away from trying to get my attention. Everything OK on the homefront, toots?
Sure he opposed handgun ownership—but this was the mayor of one of the most crime-ridden cities in America. He has since backed off from this issue. Ditto with the abortion issue. He has pledged to nominate strict constructionists like Roberts and Alito—which is why a conservative icon like Ted Olson is supporting him.
Since I don’t live in NYC, can you tell me if he reinstated the gun licenses for the law-abiding citizens after he got the crime down? Did he also join the NRA? What about GOA? Backed off the abortion issue? He is pro-life now? I still am waiting to hear how he will reconcile the fact that he made NYC a sanctuary city for illegals and his virtual fence. I do believe conservatives got behind another “Republican” in California, you know Arnold. They trusted him also, not exactly the conservative they thought he’d be , now is he?
A president is first and foremost a policy maker, not a local crisis manager.
“If Rudy is providing support to candidates in a primary, do you think he will support the more socially conservative ones, or ones who are socially liberal like himself?”
Your premise is incorrect. I never claimed he was providing support to candidates in a primary. I said if he headed the ticket in a general election he would win enough blue and purple states to assure a Republic Congress. That’s generally what happens when a candidate wins big. You, on the other hand, support a very weak candidate, a clear loser—who would almost certainly guarantee, if he were actually nominated, a Democratic victory in ‘08 and a destruction of the very values you claim to cherish. Don’t you see how politically naive your assumptions are?
“A president is first and foremost a policy maker, not a local crisis manager.”
If you don’t think the NYC miracle was the result of putting conservative policies into practice, then you know nothing about Rudy’s record.
Well, you can always hope.
That’s generally what happens when a candidate wins big.
Keep hoping. But since the Dems won so many seats last election, following your logic, it would seem more likely that they would 'sweep' a Dem president into the White House.
You, on the other hand, support a very weak candidate, a clear loser
Whom do you believe I am supporting?
Don’t you see how politically naive your assumptions are?
Apparently, naivete is in the eye of the beholder. I believe those who think Rudy's dirty laundry won't be a factor in the general election are being very naive.
“Whom do you believe I am supporting?”
I thought it was Duncan Hunter. But I may have confused you with another poster.
And you don't advance conservatism by becoming more liberal.
“Keep hoping. But since the Dems won so many seats last election, following your logic, it would seem more likely that they would ‘sweep’ a Dem president into the White House.”
You don’t follow my logic at all. The country had been evenly divided between blue and red states. That situation has been changing. Many formerly red states are becoming purple. Even more disturbing is the fact that Democrats have outperformed the Republicans in registrations. They now comprise more than half of the potential electorate. And they are loaded with cash—not to speak of the added advantage of free media support. So the picture looks grim for ‘08 unless we can run a candidate who will appeal to blue and purple states. That means thinking the unthinkable and allowing a strong candidate with wide blue state appeal to make it past the primaries—despite his lack of ideological purity. Conservatives like you and others on this site don’t properly appreciate this.
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.