A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (VANITY)

There have been quite a few threads posted on the subject of Rudy Giuliani’s prospective candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the endless back-and-forth on these threads has reached a fever pitch at times. I’ve refrained from posting extensively on these threads in recent days because they’ve started to get someone repetitive and tiresome, but also because I’ve been compiling a lot of material to include in a thread of my own. I post my comments here without any “cross-dressing” photos or “Rudy trading card” images (though I do appreciate them, folks!), and without any personal animosity toward anyone, though many of you may know me as one who has strongly opposed his candidacy for quite some time.

I don’t post vanities here very often (and usually only when I’m looking for advice!), so I think my comments here are worth a read.

1. Rudy Giuliani is really a conservative. Freepers who use this argument will often cite examples -- sometimes accurate, sometimes exaggerated, but occasionally even downright false -- of cases in which his mayoral administration in New York City pursued a particular course of action that most of us would agree is conservative from a political/philosophical standpoint. His well-documented track record as mayor of NYC offers plenty of such examples, some of which would include his administration’s success in fighting crime (for all his baggage associated with this, as described below), improving the business climate in the city, etc. The biggest flaw in this approach is that his track record is only “conservative” if you focus entirely on these specific issues and ignore the rest of them. I believe this specific view of Giuliani’s background has been sufficiently debunked by substantial, accurate references to his public statements and actual record in public office.

2. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, and it’s unrealistic for anyone to think a 100% conservative could be elected president in 2008. The underlying point here is valid in general, but the argument is usually accompanied by accusations that opponents of Rudy Giuliani are "100-Percenters" who insist on a candidate’s fealty to the entire conservative agenda. This would only be a legitimate argument if applied to a candidate who is conservative on, say, 70% of the issues -- but it is awfully silly when used to support a candidate who is conservative on about 20% of the issues -- especially the "defining issues" for so many conservatives. Calling someone who refuses to support a liberal candidate a "100-Precenters" is comical -- and certainly isn’t going to get a candidate any more support among conservative voters.

3. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, but he’ll be relentless in the "war on terror" (whatever the heck that means) and therefore he’s the best GOP candidate in 2008. This is basically a corollary to Point #2, in which a Giuliani supporter who knows damn well that he’s conservative on only 20% of the issues will try to transform him into a hard-core conservative by pretending that one issue is somehow weighted disproportionately to the others and therefore this 20% is magically transformed to 80%. That doesn’t fly with me, folks. Basing your support of a candidate on your own assertion of "the most important issue" is silly, especially when you consider that most voters may not necessarily agree with (A) your presumption of the most important issue, or (B) your view of which candidate is in the best position to address this issue.

4. Rudy Giuliani may only be 20% conservative, but that’s better than Hillary/Obama/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. At least this argument is based on an honest assessment of Mr. Giuliani’s political philosophy, but this is no way to win elections. Yes, a "20% conservative" is better than a "10% conservative," but then pneumonia is a terrible affliction except in comparison to tuberculosis, too. Supporting an unabashed liberal candidate is basically a complete abdication of our principles on the altar of "pragmatism," and while this is one thing when we’re talking about the minutiae of tax policy, entitlement reform, etc., it is entirely different when we are dealing with political principles that serve as the underlying foundation of our political views.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY I HAVE BEEN ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO GIULIANI’S CANDIDACY FOR SO LONG. I’LL LIST THEM ALL HERE, AND THEN FOLLOW THEM UP WITH A MORE GENERAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE END.

Rudy Giuliani’s background and public statements on this issue have been well-documented here on FreeRepublic in recent months. It’s bad enough that legitimate conservative opposition to him on this issue is dismissed so readily by lumping it together with “social issues” (as if the protection of human life is nothing more than a social construct and not at the root of any functioning culture that intends to survive over a long period of time), but what is particularly preposterous is that Giuliani’s views on this issue represent a radical, left-wing extremist position that even many pro-abortion Democrats find completely unacceptable (Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, and Tom Daschle were three of many Democrats in the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal late-term abortion ban in 2003). Some people right here on FreeRepublic -- for some reason that baffles the hell out of me -- have even go so far as to suggest that his obfuscation on this issue makes him something of a “sort of pro-life” candidate. His track record particularly with regard to the issue of late-term abortion illustrates how utterly absurd this is.

Keep in mind that the Republican Party has not had a pro-abortion presidential candidate since Gerald Ford ran and lost in 1976 -- which means no pro-abortion GOP candidate has ever won a presidential election. In fact, much of the party’s success at the voting booth over the last 30 years was attributable to its ability to capitalize on pro-life Democrats who had become utterly repulsed by their own party’s stand on this issue. The Republican Party ought to think long and hard about turning its back on the pro-life movement right now.

This issue has been a hot topic of discussion over the last 12-18 months in the mainstream media as well as right here on FreeRepublic, and any candidate who ignores it does so at his own peril. Unfortunately for Giuliani, it is impossible for him to reconcile his track record with anything other than the most permissive open-borders policy imaginable. While mayor of New York City he was an unabashed supporter of illegal immigration, and even went so far as to maintain a “sanctuary city” policy regarding illegal immigrants in direct violation of those provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that specifically outlawed this type of crap. His actions with regard to that Federal law were particularly disgraceful in light of the fact that he himself had been a Federal prosecutor at one time, and with this one issue he has effectively exposed his "law & order" reputation -- which people might otherwise consider a strong asset -- as a complete fraud.

It also made him terribly weak on other issues -- especially in the aftermath of 9/11. If the mayor of New York City could take it upon himself to blatantly ignore key provisions of this Federal law, would it be acceptable for a mayor or governor to knowingly and egregiously violate terms of the Patriot Act for purely political reasons? Would it be acceptable for the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan to harbor militants from Hamas and Hezbollah in his city? Would it be acceptable for mayors of other cities to ignore the various Federal laws that Rudy Giuliani himself called for incessantly when he was the mayor of New York City?

That last statement is a perfect lead-in to my third point. I thought the pro-life movement would be the most difficult hurdle for a Giuliani campaign to overcome, but the backlash among gun owners here on FreeRepublic to his recent appearance on Hannity & Colmes was pretty shocking. Watching Giuliani twist himself into knots while engaging in that pathetic display of political gymnastics even made me embarrassed for him. As with the pro-life issue, this is one in which his background and well-documented track record cannot possibly be rationalized from a conservative standpoint.

And for all the silly nonsense I’ve heard about how “tough” Rudy Giuliani would be against terrorism, the reality is that he has an extensive track record of opposing the most effective means of protection Americans have at their disposal against the kind of “terrorism” they are most likely to encounter in their lives -- e.g., a couple of homosexual Muslims driving around the D.C. suburbs shooting people at random, some loser Muslim from Bosnia shooting people at random in a Salt Lake City shopping mall, an Iranian-born jack@ss driving his car onto a crowded sidewalk in North Carolina, etc.

And in the one specific case before 9/11 where Rudy Giuliani had to deal with a terrorist attack as mayor of New York City -- the case of the Palestinian malcontent shooting people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997 -- Giuliani was complicit in the media cover-up of the incident (in which the perpetrator’s political motivations were brushed aside, he was portrayed as a mentally unstable loner, and the gun he used became the primary culprit). His public statements in the aftermath of that attack contained no mention of terrorism at all -- and in fact he went so far as to use the attack to support his public anti-gun campaign. His statements in the days and weeks after the incident have been posted here a number of times, and ought to be a shocking, disgraceful warning sign even for his strongest supporters here.

In one sense, Giuliani’s approach to law enforcement, gun control, etc. was perfectly acceptable when he was the mayor of New York City. But it was for all the wrong reasons when it comes to presidential politics. In some ways his no-holds-barred approach to law enforcement (selective as it was, as I have pointed out above in Reason #2) and blatant antagonism toward the Bill of Rights would appeal to some folks the same way they would find the streets of Tokyo or Singapore safe and clean, or the same way they might be quite comfortable with Alberto Fujimori’s strong-arm tactics against the Shining Path militants in Peru. But Tokyo is not an American city, and Peru is not the United States . . . and nor, quite frankly, is New York City. People who walk around New York City can take some comfort in the notion that there are 40,000 police officers in that jurisdiction, and that few of their fellow pedestrians are permitted to carry guns. The city is just a place to do business, and for all intents and purposes these people aren’t even Americans anyway (Rudy Giuliani himself formally acknowledged this when he climbed his pedestal as an unabashed champion of illegal immigration) -- so who really cares? New York City might as well be an international protectorate, and the political climate there is such that anyone who can win an election in that city has no business leading this country. Conservatives ought to be no more willing to trust this man to uphold basic principles of constitutional law than they would trust Michael Bloomberg.

It’s no coincidence that there hasn’t been a New Yorker on a successful national ticket since a nearly-deceased FDR won for the last time in 1944 -- a period that now exceeds 60 years even though New York has been one of the three largest states in the U.S. in terms of electoral votes for that entire time. Most of the issues that occupy the minds of voters in New York are completely alien to ordinary Americans -- which is why the Big Apple has been at the forefront among big cities in almost every recent story involving the intrusion of a big, nanny-state government into the personal lives of its residents . . . from smoking bans, to laws against trans-fats, to the latest half-baked idea to hit the airwaves: the prohibition against the used of cell phones by pedestrians.

None of this should come as any surprise to us, since New York City has long been detached from reality when it comes to American culture and politics. The American Revolution was fought throughout most of the Thirteen Colonies, but was won largely the South -- New York City having remained in British hands throughout most of the conflict. Mass immigration from Ireland and Wales made it a “foreign” city even as far back as 160 years ago, and the Eastern European immigration of the early 20th Century introduced an element -- radical secularism and (later) communism -- that has only grown stronger over time. Almost every rabidly anti-American ideology at work in this country can trace its roots to New York’s academic and cultural institutions.

Today, much of Rudy Giuliani’s media support is coming from big-city, cosmopolitan “neo-conservatives” who have a long history of supporting interventionist foreign policy (I would have to devote an entire thread to this one issue), but have never been much for supporting traditional American values and often give some pretty clear indications that they have never even read the U.S. Constitution (the New York Post has a long-held editorial view in favor of gun control, and have the words “Second Amendment” or the phrase “right to keep and bear arms” ever been printed in the Weekly Standard?

These people have an agenda that is not mine, and any lapdog in the neo-conservative media -- and that includes Rupert Murdoch’s mouthpieces at Fox News, the New York Post, etc. -- who goes out on a limb to support such a radical left-wing candidate (that means you, Sean Hannity and Deroy Murdock) has basically lost all of his/her credibility as a conservative commentator.

What this all comes down to is that each and every one of us is either a Republican or a conservative. Because the Republican Party platform has been quite conservative (and downright hard-core right-wing, in comparison to the Democratic platform) in recent decades, we’ve managed to delude ourselves into believing that ‘Republican” and “conservative” are always synonymous. Rudy Giuliani’s prospective candidacy for the GOP nomination in 2008 should put this tenuous relationship between party affiliation and political philosophy in the proper light. We are either Republicans first, or we are conservatives first -- there is no middle road here.

Regarding one other item related to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign that pops up on these threads repeatedly (I’ve steadfastly tried to avoid mentioning it, but it cannot be overlooked) . . .

Anyone who has the time to do some research on Rudy Giuliani might want to sit down and do an extensive search through old newspaper articles, internet articles, etc. -- and try to find any such article where Mr. Giuliani is doing something that anyone would consider “manly” in any normal sense -- and by this I mean engaging in physical activity, playing a sport, or doing just about anything that most normal people would associate with manliness. I’ve looked long and hard for this, and I simply can’t find one. I mean, even something staged as a photo-op for PR purposes -- like Ronald Reagan riding a horse or chopping wood on his California ranch, George W. Bush clearing brush on his ranch or driving around Crawford in that big white Ford F-350 Super Duty truck -- is nowhere to be found.

If the “cross-dressing” photos of Rudy Giuliani aren’t necessarily bothersome in and of themselves, they raise some serious warning flags in light of the points I’ve mentioned above. I suspect this is what Giuliani’s own campaign staff had in mind when they referred to the “weirdness factor” as a potential stumbling block in an election campaign. And it’s very important to note that this warning was documented all the way back in 1993, not 2007 -- which means it dates all the way back to his second mayoral race in New York City. Anyone who comes across as “weird” in New York City would be a bizarre freak according to the standards of at least 95% of the people in this country.

Call me paranoid, and call me judgmental, but something about this whole thing just ain’t right. Run down the list of all those things that ought to be setting off warning bells in the minds of normal, decent people . . . the cross-dressing . . . the public statements extolling the work of Planned Parenthood and eugenicist Margaret Sanger . . . the enthusiastic support from NARAL . . . the hosting of those Gay Pride and Stonewall Veterans Association events . . . those bizarre marriages.

Perhaps Freud had it right when he postulated that “a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” (General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1952)

The last thing this country needs right now is an effete, dysfunctional weirdo from New York City serving as its chief executive.

And lest anyone think I’m an unreasonable man, I’d like everyone to take a look at the article posted below. I wrote it in the turbulent aftermath of the 2000 election, and posted it here on FreeRepublic when the election results were finally certified in mid-December of that that year. (The link below is a re-post of that article from 2004).

You can be sure that the passionate (but also extremely objective) conservative who penned those words in December of 2000 will never support Rudy Giuliani in 2008. I’ve traveled across this country too many times -- and know too much about what this country is really all about -- for me to support a big-government, liberal globalist from New York City in a presidential race, regardless of his party affiliation.

And anyone here who works for the Republican Party in any capacity -- and anyone regularly browses through various threads here on FreeRepublic on behalf of a GOP candidate or a GOP media outlet -- should heed this message . . .

IF YOU’RE TRYING TO SELL A PHONY CONSERVATIVE, THEN THIS FELLA AIN’T GONNA BE YOUR CUSTOMER.

when push comes to shove, southerners will vote for Rudy simply because they will not be able to bear the alternative.

So you think that trying to force people to vote for you man is the way to go and this will work. Why don't you ask the first george bush and/or bob dole, to see if it works. And to your second point, if the senate doesn't block any illegal immigration amnesty. Then there will be a dimorat in the white house for a long time.

I would say this if an anti-Hunter, anti-Nest, or anti-Romney thread were posted as well.

Hey...Duncan Hunter was just included with some "names" People are starting to recognize him:')

I agree with you though. Check your candidates out yourself. There is nothing wrong with it but people post what they believe,as they should.

babygene: For a politician that expects to run for office anywhere other than N.Y. or Ca, it shows extremely poor judgment. (The pictures in drag)

carton25: No, it does not. Please!

And I guess it wasn't "poor judgment" for Kerry to pose in a bunny costume either???

BTW, you're spam links are past the point of immature.

Mighty bold words for someone who claims he can channel Ronald Reagan.

Is that you Jim Webb?

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

You are stupid! If Giuliani is nominated and you don't vote for him...say you don't vote at all or state you integrity by voting Libertarian or Green then you have voted for all these negatives because the negatives all belong to Hillary and Barrack Hussein Obama. At least Giuliani has said he will nominate conservative judges and that is where all this is decided anyway.

Such lack of reason makes me think you are a liberal trying to upset the system.

207 posted on 02/23/2007 10:02:33 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")

I don't look for a president who agrees with me on all the issues, but the one who can lead the country in the right general direction. This time around, I'm looking for someone who understands and the war on terror, wants to win, and CAN win.

209 posted on 02/23/2007 10:03:13 AM PST by TommyDale (What will Rudy do in the War on Terror? Implement gun control on insurgents and Al Qaeda?)

Did I miss a /sarc tag?
Since Rudy didn't nominate much in the way of conservative judges when ran NYC, what makes you believe him now?
A guy who support abortions and thinks the 2nd Amendment is about hunting wouldn't know a conservatve judge or original intent, any way.

Thanks for the post and ping!

I cannot ever in good conscience support or vote for anyone who attacks the Bill of Rights like Rudy G has in his attacks on the Second Amendment.

I do not and will not trust a politician that does not trust me with a gun.

If anyone doubts the mood of the Second Amendment crowd do a search for "Jim Zumbo", you will find we are very serious...

"Can't really recall the part in the Bible where Jesus calls on Christians to slaughter and subjugate non-Christians...or the Jews, for that matter."

Right, it probably comes from the Old Testament, notably Deuteronomy ch. 2-3. Lotta good slaughter of non-believers in there.

"You are stupid! If Giuliani is nominated and you don't vote for him.."

You've got it wrong, as usual...

If YOU insist on and support a candidate that can't get the social conservative vote, then YOU are electing Hillary.

Dear kaotic133, if you look at the certainly, the extremism is one of degree. But if you look at what's mainstream within the religions... you see that extremism, fascism and oppression is mainstream withing Islam. You asked where Jesus said that he hated gay people or advocated religious laws for the Roman Empire. He didn't, that's why Christian countries are the only places where gays aren't persecuted, and where there is a seperation between what is God's and what is Caesar's. Muslims seem genuinely befuddled by the concept of a seperation of church and state. It is only Christianity that has implemented something like that.

215 posted on 02/23/2007 10:05:02 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

"It's posts like yours that keep me off these threads."

REPLY:

Thanks to Jim Robinson you have that prerogative to either post or not post.

I never ran across anyone wanting to ban any such thing. If there were such a movement, it was a tiny minority.

Really? Is that why it was pushed through Congress by a 3-1 vote? Can you tell me why the Religious Right is so interested in what I do in my own life?

The Religious Right is much more interested in seeing the end of murdering innocent children while still in the womb, and also the end of the homosexualization of America.

Certainly, but while they're at it, they are very interested in sticking their nose into other people's business. I'm against that, not because I'm anti-religious (unless that religion is Islam), I'm against it because I love freedom.

217 posted on 02/23/2007 10:07:17 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

If anyone doubts the mood of the Second Amendment crowd do a search for "Jim Zumbo", you will find we are very serious...

We need to strike while the iron's hot and educate the 2nd amendment crowd about Giuliani's anti-2nd amendment views and policies as Mayor. Maybe we can help create a "Jim Zumbo" moment for Giuliani and do more damage to his chance at the nomination. I'm perplexed at how quickly some pro-lifers have turned coat to support Giuliani. I don't think that the 2nd amendment crowd will be nearly as gullible.

218 posted on 02/23/2007 10:09:02 AM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")

Regulars here are not liberals. However, many pro-Giuliani posters are liberals.

So liberals support Rudy. Tell me, were you the one who said that in a choice between Rudy and a Democrat, you would vote for the Democrat, because he would give you a lot of "free stuff"? Are people who think that socialism is about "free stuff" not liberals? You're right, they're socialists. I hope you were not the one who said that.

219 posted on 02/23/2007 10:09:13 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

I see it as a good thing, but some modern Christians see it as a political failure and would base their political choices on nothing but reversing that trend.

You're absolutely right about the real tolerence and openess of Christian societies, but in doing so you mask the popularly radicalized trend to stop that process from proceeding and perhaps reverse some of the secularization and religious-nuetral legislation.

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.