I was at a Giuliani fundraiser a few weeks ago and I have to say that he was pretty impressive. He was getting some tough questions and handling them pretty well. For example, when he asked about the Fatah/Hamas situation, his answer was approximately as follows:
“I think we need to start by reaching out to Fatah and seeing if they can contain Hamas and keep the peace. Now I think that has only about a 30 to 40 percent chance of working, but we have to try, if only for the sake of international appearances. If that doesn’t work, we need to look into cutting off aid. We need to cut off all aid to Gaza, since Hamas controls that area. It’s sad, considering the humanintarian problems that would cause, but we can’t be underwriting a terrorist organization.”
I voted for Bush twice, but Giuliani just seems more well-read, able to think better on his feet, and a more able executive.
As for the objections to Giuliani:
1. He’s a gun-grabber.
His record on guns isn’t good, but he was also appeasing a very left-wing city. Why on earth would a Republican president alienate his base and try to grab guns? I just don’t see any realistic scenario for this happening.
2. He’s pro-amnesty.
I have little hope that any president will get the support of Congress to deport 12 million aliens. I’ll take Giuliani’s promise to build a wall.
3. He’s pro-choice.
The last three Republican presidents were pro-life, and we still get thousands of abortions a day. No matter who is elected in 2008, abortions will still be happening in 2008. Abortions will stop when people stop having them.
4. He’s worn a dress on television and has gay friends.
Criticisms like this seem to amount to “he’s not one of us”, but I hear a strain of tribalism in such thinking. Giuliani is a secular urbanite, not a rural religious conservative like Bush. His attitudes are a bit different, but we have to think of the big picture. Giuliani has shown he knows how to be an executive.
Full disclosure: I’m not on Giuliani’s staff and have taken no money from him.
Nice analysis. I would add that him wearing that dress on the SNL skit showed me he doesn’t take himself so seriously it becomes a character flaw.
precisely why he will not be nominated.
Re. # 33: Great post!
Why on earth would a Republican president alienate his base and try to grab guns grant amnesty to illegal aliens?
There was a time when I would've agreed with your comment, but I've changed my opinion considerably as of late.
The last three Republican presidents were pro-life, and we still get thousands of abortions a day.
I'm not sure I understand your point. We still have crime; does that mean we should give up fighting it? And I might add that someone who believes Roe v Wade is bad law is much more likely to appoint strict constructionists to the bench.
Here is a partial record:
BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Giuliani supports campaign finance "reform." He also banned the New Yorker's ads on public buses because the ads poked fun at him. Even though he is a public figure, he actually tried to claim authority over how his name is used -- imagine the precedent that would set if he had won.
Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Non-renewal of gun permits for law-abiding New Yorkers whom even Dinkins allowed to remain armed; lawsuits against gun manufacturers; pushing national gun liscensing; responding to a terrorist attack during his watch (attack at Empire State Building) by calling for more restrictive gun laws; stating that people should have to demonstrate a good reason to have a gun.
Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I know of nothing that Rudy has said or done on this front. It's possible that he supports Amendment III.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
He supported unreasonable searches based solely on anonymous tips (and was overturned by the courts). He proposed collecting the DNA of all newborns. That's just off the top of my head -- Rudy does not have a good record on Amendment IV.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rudy supports seizure of property from those acquitted of a crime. Rudy repeatedly used eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. It's a big NO on Amendment V.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Many people whose property he seized in NYC did not receive trials at all; the city later had to return many of the vehicles because the courts ordered immediate hearings and backlog made it impossible to satisfy the ruling. I believe there may also be some problems reconciling Rudy's use of RICO and his support of a more extensive PATRIOT Act with Amendment VI. This requires additional research.
Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Need more research on this one. There may be problems both with property forfeiture and with RICO similar to Amendment VI.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Losing one's property upon being accused of a first offense, even when acquitted, can be considered imposing excessive fines.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
See my tagline. Rudy doesn't believe you have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do (i.e., his understanding is the complete opposite of the way our Founding Documents actually work).
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Federal gun laws are just one example of his antipathy to federalism and states' rights, not to mention individual rights.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS
Article I, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
He supported seizure of property belonging to those acquitted of crime, which is the definition of bill of attander.
Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress
-snip-
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
-snip-
AND Article 6. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
He defied the feds on immigration, even though the Constitution clearly defines anything related to naturalization as a power of the federal government; and anything that is explicitly declard a power of the federal government by the Constitution trumps state and city action via the Supremacy Clause (the Supremacy Clause is greatly abused, but in this case immigration is the lawful responsibility of the feds).
More deep thoughts from the Rudybots.
WhAT!?!?
“I think we need to start by reaching out to Fatah and seeing if they can contain Hamas and keep the peace. ...”
Sorry, that is an awful answer... same old same old on mid-east, catering to the palistinian kakistocrats.
No mention of the fact that Iran is behind Hamas.
Nor does Rudy ever explain how to win in Iraq.
Your #3 is all wrong. Every other candidate wants to see Roe v Wade repealed and know which judges need to be nominated. Rudy seems to thinkg Justice Ginsburg could make a good judge. He exposed his real self on multiple occasions and has come out of the closet as a pro-choicer. Rudy CANNOT be trusted to nominate the right kind of judges, to make the right decision that impact life, family and other serious and fundamental cultural issues.
His wearing a dress and cavorting with gays is just a visible symbol, the canary in the coalmine of how liberal he is on these issues and therefore how unacceptable he is as a candidate for America.
“I was at a Giuliani fundraiser a few weeks ago and I have to say that he was pretty impressive. He was getting some tough questions and handling them pretty well.”
FWIW, I thought he did poorly in both debates I saw and I don’t understand why he does as well as he does in the polls.
You left out btw:
7. Corruption/Kerik.
8. Image as an anti-freedom control freak.
9. Opposed welfare reform in 1990s.
10. Liked Clinton’s domestic policy.
11. Was a former mcgovern supporter.
12. seems to have many subordinates mired in scandals.
runs with wrong crowd in many ways.
13. messy divorces, estranged kids, 3rd wife - not a good family man example.
14. Not strong on Constitution - just ask Ron Paul :-)
15. Not strong of 1st amendment rights.
16. highest office held was mayor, no private executive epxerience. is that really training for president?