Posted on 07/30/2005 5:55:36 AM PDT by Uncledave
With Gipper's game plan, Rudy can win it all
July 30, 2005
BY THOMAS ROESER Advertisement
As I write this I know my fellow social conservatives will get mad: There is no one in either political party who would be a more exciting candidate for president than Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. I'll tell you his story -- the good and the bad -- and I'll tell you how he can solve his problems with you. And me. Incidentally, as you read, keep in mind the contrast with Mayor Daley.
The good and bad about Rudy is contained in a book, The Prince of the City [Encounter: 2005] by Fred Siegel, a hard-bitten teacher at Cooper Union University. The good: Rudy came into office in 1994 a Republican in a Big Apple that was rotten to the core, steeped with bosses, bagmen and racial arsonists, a hostile "combination of liberal consensus and helplessness [that] made serious policy debate seem irrelevant," and quickly brought in a band of brother prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office. They gave up millions in private law firm salaries for the fun of working and drinking (after hours) with Rudy. Most never left his side until his two terms ran out in 2001.
Giuliani was an eerily compulsive hands-on manager. If you want to understand him, said an associate, remember that as a Yankee fan he's the guy who keeps score and writes down how each out and each run took place. Just as when he read The Godfather he diagrammed how the mob worked, for relaxation he would sketch on a pad how every department worked. He would explain to the public clearly what he wanted to do: cut the size of government, cut taxes to attract jobs "so people can work," consolidate or cut out city departments, introduce competition to delivery of services and work with the governor [Democrat Mario Cuomo] "to get our fair share of revenue."
He insisted on tough police standards, once jumping out of his limo in Times Square to chase a guy he saw grab a woman's purse. He was heedless of civil libertarians. It seemed like he wanted to offend all interest groups and took the heat, forgetting the polls. Crime in 1995 saw 163,428 fewer felonies, with murder dropping 16 percent in 1996. He trumpeted that work is the best social welfare policy, pushing welfare reform, announcing that 23 percent of the welfare recipients in Jersey City were also receiving New York City benefits. He balanced his budget, fought with Al Sharpton against what he called "racial racketeering," and grinned as he took heat from minority communities.
The bad? Giuliani was ego-driven. He got jealous of his police commissioner, who was getting more favorable press than he, fired him and hired another (who was just as tough). Giuliani's personal life fell into tatters: his first marriage annulled, his second wife was a TV anchor who drove him nuts. He spatted with her, kept public company with a divorcee, came down with prostate cancer, married again. His political career was pronounced over. Then came 9/11.
That tragedy redeemed him. When the first plane hit the north tower, Guiliani ran from the Pinnacle Hotel where he was at a breakfast, shouting over his cell phone that command headquarters should move from 7 World Trade Center to Barclay Street a block away. Good thinking: Just as they evacuated, the plane hit the south tower. The debris was so heavy his command center was inundated. With his cell phone deadened, Giuliani's staff thought he was dead as well, but a janitor found him dazed and led him out through a little-known passage in the basement.
Television captured the man at that moment, stumbling down the street in the smoke, his handkerchief to his mouth, directing his city through uncharted territory, ordering all bridges and tunnels shut down. Courage is the most important virtue, said Churchill: It guarantees all others. As Bush retires, he should be supplanted by a man of this valor.
Social conservatives will oppose Giuliani for his pro-abortion views. It's up to Giuliani to help himself with them, and here's how. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the most permissive abortion law in the country. Rudy, can you hear me? If you want this thing -- this presidency -- you gotta change and mean it. Your marriages we can do nothing about. But your social views have to change. They'll say you're an opportunist, but you have heard that before. You can change. And mean it. We're waiting.
"Wow do you have another attack or do we have to listen to you say the same thing on this board for the rest of our lives?'
LOL, yet another example of your DUmmie ways. When you use a liberal's own words against them, they call it an "attack".
Here, let me "attack" you again (you say that you were talking about litmus tests but your comment below isnt an indicator of such) :
"Oh there wont be burkas but there will be Blue Laws, forced religious instruction, a limitation of the first amendment, Religion as state law."
Again, it seems as if you have a deep seated hatred of religious individuals. Its a shame, you must hate our founding fathers too......after all they would be leading the "religious right" today.
Were Christian Conservatives in defacto totalitarian control they would in fact be every bit as prone to the same horrific behavior as the Taliban.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I say all this for the sake of discussion and that I'm too bored to go play pinochle. I do not for a minute consider a Christian conservative coup to be anywhere in the realm of possibility.
"The minor feuding is getting boring for the rest of us still reading this thread."
You're right. Im getting bored too. I hope that Sentis will be flamed to no end in this thread, as he deserves it. I'll let others pick up the ball and run with it at this point, debating this idiot is pointless.
"Were Christian Conservatives in defacto totalitarian control they would in fact be every bit as prone to the same horrific behavior as the Taliban."
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!!
I live in a socially conservative state, possibly the most socially conservative state in the union. We still frame the debate in terms of natural law and faith in God. It's a great place for families and to rear kids. Lately, we've been getting a lot of social liberals moving into the state from California. I've gotten to know several of them. Invariably, they begin by saying, "This place isn't as bad as I was led to believe. In fact, it's a pleasant surprise. It's very clean, the people are friendly, there is little crime, and there is an optimism here that I haven't sensed since I was a kid." Within a few months they start missing California. "This place is way behind the times. We need liquor by the drink, and I just don't understand how you can be so cruel to gays and lesbians by denying them the right to marry. And what's with this antiquated idea you have that mothers should stay home with their young children? You are suffocating half your workforce with such misogynist beliefs. And you're all gun nuts. This theocracy is out of control. We need to make this place like California."
Conveniently forgetting, of course, that they were far more miserable in socially liberal California, which is why they moved away in the first place.
The question is, once they have made every other state socially liberal like California where will they move to find peace?
Very nice laugh. Are you so cowardly that you cannot answer the simple question I have asked three times? I have answered yours.
Oh...silly me. You are a coward.
Point of information:
The preambles to the constitutions of ALL 50 states acknowledge God.
Click on my name. They're all listed there.
I have no wish to feud. I am merely putting on a defense to what could be seen as a tantrum on Steller's part.
To answer your question
We as conservatives are not immune to a major Democrat win in 2008. In fact Hillery could win by hold all the blue states (which she will) and winning one red state which will be Florida. Lets not fool ourselves into believing that the religious right is responsible for our control of the white house and congress. it isn't. The Republicans have had that vote ever since the Democrats flip flopped over to pandering minorities in the late 60's.
Since Reagan Republicans have been winning not on values but on ideas. When Republicans have stuck to a lower taxes, strong Military, slow social change agenda they tend to win. When the Democrats are able to frame the debate or win Southern voters over by pretending to be fake moderates they win.
The next election will be different. We came very close to losing this time. We can be beat, we can easily be beat if we let ourselves fall into the trap that this country cares about religion. It doesn't in fact the more overly religious you are the less chance you have. Last election the Democrats made a huge mistake they nominated a treasonous bastard. He still came close to winning why? because people don't actually trust Bush. His overt religious nature is unsettling to alot of Americans. If we nominate Guliani we will win NY, we will win PA this will make up for the loss we will suffer in Fl. Well he could even possibly win Fl (thats not a sure thing). Without Guliani we will lose Fl.
Now if the Religious Right will just tone down there rhetoric for a few years we can win and win big. If not and they create a religious litmus test for Republicans we will lose and lose big.
Thats my opinion but I think it is valid.
"Of all the things that Sentis "accused" you of the most likely one that you would favor in my mind would be a return of the Blue Law."
He didn't accuse me of anything. He equated the Christian conservatives with the Taliban. As I have stated previously, I am not a christian or a jew, but I support both religions.
No I do not support blue laws, but I knew where you were headed when you responded by specifically singling out the blue laws segment of his comments. It was an implicit agreement.
The fact that your previous post before your response to me states that "Were Christian Conservatives in defacto totalitarian control they would in fact be every bit as prone to the same horrific behavior as the Taliban."
shows an additional support of what Sentis said.
By the way, atheism necessarily leads to determinism as well. After all, in a Godless universe, everything is cause and effect. No free will.
One of the most bigoted, stupid comments ever seen on FR.
Same thing. Except homosexual activists want it in name as well.
"Civil unions" is to the gay agenda what Nevil Chamberlain's submission was to Hitler.
Well yes, I agree more with him than with you.
And I thank you for finally answering the question. Good day.
"Are you so cowardly that you cannot answer the simple question I have asked three times? I have answered yours.
Oh...silly me. You are a coward."
Ahh...out pours the real hater. I was busy typing a response to your post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1453719/posts?page=250#250
If Republicans play this right, we could actually claim to be on both sides of every issue
Is this post by "Depends-on-what-IS-IS"-Clinton, or Hillary, or the toe-sucking wierdo - Dick Morris?
WHY in HELL should Republicans want to be seen as a gaggle of "moderates"? They are linguini-spined, wimpy, fence-sitting scumbags that can NOT be trusted, ESPECIALLY where our basic civil rights are concerned - as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Like Rush has said - there are famous liberals and famous conservatives - but there are no famous "moderates".
Also, how about Republicans stand for the Constitution and doing what is right. To HELL with being on "both sides of every issue".
And as far as RINO-Rudy's 9/11 "performance". That's ALL it was, a "performance", and a performance that took no special skill (other than a level of political acumen), and certainly no bravery or sacrifice.
And herein lies the problem with party politics. I don't care how he contrasts with another candidate. Do his views represent mine? That is the only question an informed voter should be making in the voting booth. If they don't, I don't vote for them
Of course now I expect the response from party faithful, 'But just think how bad this person or that person would have been'. And that is exactly the opposite thinking that we should have. If you don't agree with a candidate, don't vote for him or her because you're voting against the other candidate. Leave that slot blank or write in someone. Party faithful may call that a wasted vote but it was the intention of the Framers, instead of voting for parties as Washington warned against in 1796
"Well yes, I agree more with him than with you. "
Folks, if you want to know the level of idiocy we have among us, here is the statement by Sentis to which Artemis Webb says he agrees with:
"Oh there wont be burkas but there will be Blue Laws, forced religious instruction, a limitation of the first amendment, Religion as state law."
To understand, here is Artemis' previous statement:
"Were Christian Conservatives in defacto totalitarian control they would in fact be every bit as prone to the same horrific behavior as the Taliban."
Ahh, the quislings expose themselves more and more each day.
I disagree people follow social codes because it is in their best interests or they are socialized to follow those codes. Threat of eternal damnation has little control over the behavior of most people if it did history would be quite different.
How is determinism any different when God as a Omnipotent being already knows what choices you will make and therefore making Christian cosmology just as determinate. I think the quantum nature of physics works to create a non-deterministic universe but those are different debates from what we are discussing.
Why did you tell me that? You should have addressed it to one of the quislings ;)
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.