Skip to comments.The Rudy Giuliani Truth File in his own words and deeds
Posted on 04/25/2007 3:41:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
He’s still in the lead. And Rush was hyping him today, FYI.
In the last two years, this unit has stopped and frisked 40,000 New Yorkers. Theyve found grounds to arrest fewer than one in four of them.
Wow! If the 40K stops were random, then statistically one-quarter of NYC residents are criminals!!(A crime-free metropolis indeed!)
The stops were most likely based on some kind of probable cause...such as the parts of town where the stops were made.
Still, a far too tyranical approach to crime control.
Oh, and thanks for all the good research you are doing! Keep up the good work.
I see your BBB, and raise you one. (Good one!)
The dems will jump all over anybody they think may be conservative, but I suspect they are getting their information from the MSM on that point.
Rudy Giuliani was quoted saying he agreed with Bill Clinton eighty percent of the time. I doubt that Hillary agrees with Bill that much. So if Giuliani becomes president, it’s safe to call it another eight years of the Clintons and a democrat congress. A lot of conservatives will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the best the republicans can offer.
It surprises me that so many residents of New York City actually believe that what is enumerated as a right is actually a perquisite to be dispensed at the pleasure of the chief executive. The bill of rights specified that it was not created to grant rights, but to recognize rights that free men posses by the grace of God.
It saddens me that New Yorkers in general refuse to look at the rest of the United States and see that aside from the obvious constitutional argument, right to carry laws work. Although I frequently quote crime statistics and cite incidents when the innocent use a gun to defend against the criminal, the argument is not about numbers. it should never be about numbers. It is about your rights. You have the right to defend yourself against an attack, using violent and deadly force if need be. Whether a million lives are saved by citizens with concealed weapons every day, or whether it is but one life, it makes no difference. That one person's life is just as sacred to him as anyone else's.
It amazes me that so many people in New York have forgotten that the worst two mass murders in the United States happened in New York City, at the World Trade Center and the Happy Land Social Club, and neither crime involved a gun.
“...would you allow anyone without a criminal record to own any kind of gun they desired?”
Yes. Why not?
Your attitude toward Jim is repulsive.
True, but the anti-Rudys do not have what it takes to be effective in the real world of politics. Ironically, mankind cannot be saved by politics, and these people, many of whom profess to trust God, do not trust him at all, but quake and shudder at everything popping its head out of the closet.
It is not exactly reason that eludes these people, but a narrowly defined view of who is right and who is wrong. Within that narrow universe, their reason does make sense. But their universe is severely limited by their fears, their trusts, and their upbringing.
They may never understand that God is neither liberal nor conservative. They may never understand that both philosophies are extremely flawed. They feel they must look at a view, decide whether it’s conservative or liberal, and then reject anything that smells of liberalism. As if conservatism is the ultimate reality, or God’s ultimate plan to save us. it clearly is not.
What is hilarious about this thread between Jim and me, is that I have said very little about my view of guns, but everyone is jumping to conclusions. I have asked him some questions, tried to put his feet to the fire and get into a constructive, thoughtful dialogue, but all I get back are the same aphorisms repeated over and over.
Ann Coulter has criticized this form of argument, as it doesn’t require answering a direct question, or thinking. George Orwell also criticized this form of argument in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
You’re assuming quite a bit, based on some questions I have asked, and a few statements. I’ll set you straight:
I never meant to imply that I (or anyone) haa to “earn” the right to bear arms by getting training. Rights are not earned. What I mean is, guns are serious, and that with the right to own one, also comes responsibility. Do you disagree? In my case, that means examing my own physical competence, my state of mind, and motives and my heart, deeply, and preparing myself for these responsibilities, fully and completely. Protecting one’s life has been a right from the very first man, but guns are particularly deadly.
If I did not know, for example, how to properly store, clean, load, unload, handle or fire a gun, I believe I would be an irresponsible gun owner. But I would really love to won a gun or two one day. So that’s what I meant.
By the way, I lived in rural Minnesota most of my life, where hunting was a big feature of daily life, and guns were never considered ‘scary’. I am not a gunphobe. I moved to New York eight years ago, love it here, but also view things very independently of the New York state of mind.
I have no argument about whether right to carry laws work or don’t work. Our rights should not be defined by what works and what doesn’t. Our rights are built into the fabric of the universe by God; the Constitution only recognizes that they are there, and dedicates itself to a form a government that upholds those rights. (Natural law vs. positive law.)
I would love to hear where the Bible describes the Gospel as a set of rules to live by.
The Real Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
Soft on Gay Marriage
Other than tax cuts, the biggest domestic issue of the 2004 election was President Bush's support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani has taken a "Kerryesque" position on gay marriage.
Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades" ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:
His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."
Here's more from the New York Daily News:
"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."
Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.
As Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has pointed out, Rudy is an adherent of the same approach to illegal immigration that John McCain, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Harry Reid have championed:
"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."
That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
A More Charismatic Version of Arlen Specter
Rudy Giuliani may have many fine qualities, but he is not a conservative, nor has he always been a loyal Republican.
For example, back in the mid-nineties, when he was actually running New York City, Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst:
"The National Journal’s rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."
The New York Observer also had a very interesting selection of quotes from and about Rudy over the years that may give his conservative supporters more than a little pause. Here are a few of those quotations:
Some ask, How can the Liberal Party support a candidate who disagrees with the Liberal Party position on so many gut issues? But when the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion. -- N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of R. Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989
Mr. Rockefeller represented "a tradition in the Republican Party I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, July 9, 1992
What kind of Republican? Is [Giuliani], for instance, a Reagan Republican? [Giuliani] pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican." -- Village Voice, January 24, 1989
"Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, [Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group."
Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, he explained: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." -- Rudy - An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459
"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, 'Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." -- Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133
"[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor. In his heart, he's a Democrat. He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo. But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out. Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." -- Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S., Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994
Does this really sound like the sort of candidate we want as a standard bearer for the Republican Party?
He Can't Keep His Pants Up
There has only been one man who has ever made it to the White House after being divorced and that was Ronald Reagan, who had been married to Nancy for more than 25 years before his campaign in 1980. Rudy, on the other hand, is on his third wife.
Furthermore, his second divorce from Donna Hanover was extremely ugly. Hanover accused Rudy of "open and notorious adultery." She also claimed Rudy had an affair with a staffer, Christyne Lategano-Nicholas, which both Giuliani and Lategano-Nicholas denied. However, Rudy has acknowledged that he started seeing his current wife, Judith Nathan, before his divorce from Hanover was finalized in 2002.
Given how recent this divorce was, Rudy's adultery, and the fact that he married, "the other woman," the press can be expected to cover Rudy's marriage to Hanover exhaustively if he gets the nomination and needless to say, Rudy, quite deservedly, will not come off very well.
Does He Have The Judgment To Be President?
As you've just seen, Rudy hasn't necessarily made the best decisions in his personal life. Unfortunately, the Bernard Kerik incident shows that Giuliani's poor judgment can spill over into political matters as well.
Rudy recommended his friend and business partner, Bernard Kerik, for the position of Homeland Security Secretary and the Bush administration, perhaps because Rudy vouched for him, didn't do a very thorough job of vetting him.
Soon after Kerik's nomination became public, allegations surfaced that Kerik was having two simultaneous affairs, had ties to a construction company "linked to the mob," and had an illegal alien nanny whose taxes hadn't been paid. Under fire from the press, Kerik withdrew his name from consideration for the Homeland Security position and the Bush administration was left with egg on its face for putting up such a scandal ridden nominee.
While the whole debacle was embarrassing for the Bush Administration, it raised even more serious questions about Rudy. After all, if Bernard Kerik is the sort of person Rudy sees as an appropriate friend, business partner, and nominee to run the Homeland Security Department, it makes you wonder what kind of people he is surrounding himself with on a day to day basis.
How Electable Is Rudy Giuliani Really?
One of the biggest selling points for Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be that he's "electable" because a lot of independents and Democrats will vote for him. The problem with that sort of thinking is that if he becomes the Republican nominee, the very liberal mainstream media will spend nine months relentlessly savaging him in an effort to help the Democrats. Because of that, Giuliani's sky high polling numbers with non-Republicans are 100% guaranteed to drop significantly before election time rolls around in 2008.
That is not necessarily a problem; after all the mainstream media is always against the Republican nominee, if -- and this is a big "if" -- the GOP nominee has strong support from the Republican base.
The big problem Rudy has is that he isn't going to be able to generate that kind of support. For one thing, as a candidate, he offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn't have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues -- like Rudy -- you can be sure that millions of "moral values voters" will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.
The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn't going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.
Also, the reason why George Bush's approval numbers have been mired in the high thirties/low forties of late is because he has lost a significant amount of Republican support, primarily because his domestic policies aren't considered conservative enough. Since that's the case, running a candidate who is several steps to Bush's left on domestic policy certainly doesn't seem like a great way to unite the base again.
Despite all of his charisma and the wonderful leadership he showed after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is not a Reagan Republican. To the contrary, Giuliani is another Christie Todd Whitman, another Arlen Specter, another Olympia Snowe. He's a throwback to the "bad old days" before Reagan, when the GOP was run by moderate Country Club Republicans who considered conservatives to be extremists. Trying to revive that failed strategy again is likely to lead to a Democratic President in 2008 and numerous setbacks for the Republican Party.
Let's make this simple: anyone who is 18/21, not a convicted felony and hasn't been declared mentally incompetent by a judge can own a handgun, shotgun or rifle. Simple enough. Giuliani's anti-second amendment ways are at odds with the vast majority of the party, be it the moderates, conservatives or even the libertarian wing of the republican party.
Do we have any pictures of Julie Annie marching in gay parades?
Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani with several S.V.A. officers such as Cristina Hayworth (left) and Williamson Henderson (right) at Gracie Mansion, N.Y. [Photo by Ray J. McCaffrey]
Thursday, June 24, 1999 -- Pictured are STONEWALL Veterans' Association ("S.V.A.") Ambassadress Cristina Hayworth (up from Puerto Rico) with a Cuban cigar gift for Mayor RWG (which he had to "by law" refuse) and bussing a very amused and fun-filled New York City Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani with S.V.A. President Williamson Henderson laughing big time and, in the rear, S.V.A. Vice-President Jeremiah Newton is beaming. Literally to the far left is former and brief S.V.A. Corresponding Secretary (she was still allegedly working on her first memo) Harriet "SchMo" Garblestein. It's the first time we ever saw her smile! At this event -- well-covered by the media -- Mayor Giuliani proudly announced in a very New York manner the Federal government decision to proudly add the legendary Stonewall site into the "U.S. Registry of Historic Places". The landmark decision was done at this time to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the historic Stonewall Rebellion. The Mayor was with the S.V.A just three days later leading the annual New York City Gay Pride Parade down famous Fifth Avenue for most of the parade route. When Mayor Rudy used to march with the unpopular Log Cabin Republican boys, the Mayor unfairly -- due to association -- got many boos and hisses from the parade spectators. In sharp contrast, whenever Rudy marched with the S.V.A.'s Stonewall veterans and the unmistakable blue, classic 1969 Cadillac convertible "Stonewall Car", he received overwhelming cheers and kisses from the crowds!! And, so Mayor Rudy gladly observed and verbally commented on the very welcomed change! By the way, Rudy loves the car!
Since Jim didn’t answer what gun laws he would change in New York, I’ll offer a suggestion he might find acceptable.
All of them.
The Sullivan Act, New York’s handgun law, is one of the most racist pieces of garbage ever to see print in a law book. It was designed to prevent those bad Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants from getting their paws on firearms. Ellis Island might change your name from Horowitz or Rizzolini, and you might slip the precinct captain twenty bucks to sign the permit, but you had to appear before a judge who would determine if you were one of those ‘lesser’ castes.
Every large city that adopted right to carry laws had a reduction in crimes against persons, with an accompanying uptick in property crimes: vending machine thefts, etc. This above all else proved that RTC laws work - the bad guys are afraid of the good guys. It would be nice if everyone who owned a firearm underwent some training to be safe with it, but who will establish the training? Who will schedule it and determine the fee? The power to grant a permit is the power to deny it, and that power has been shamelessly abused in this country for the past 100 years.
No, allowing government to control how rights are exercised does not fit into my view. Government can’t be trusted.
As for your own interests, try Westside Rifle And Pistol on West 29th Street in Manhattan.
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.