Posted on 02/23/2007 7:45:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child
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.
The “pro-Rudy” arguments typically fall along these lines:
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.
Reason #1: The Pro-Life Issue
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.
Reason #2: Illegal Immigration
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?
Reason #3: Gun Control
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.
“Tough on terrorism,” my @ss.
Reason #4: If You Can Make it There, You’re Disqualified
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.
No, you didn't sound harsh at all.
My husband probably owns that CD.
I'm gonna use that line sometime in a conversation down the road, if you don't mind.
I see you got a pretty good response from your piece, which is well written I might add.
I won't be supporting Giuliani during the primary, I will support someone who agrees with me on more than 21%.
I agree with all of Giuliani's detractors, which is reason enough not to support him during the primary. I am leaning toward Hunter and Gingrich, either one of whom would be head and shoulders above Giuliani in my view. Giuliani is a Lieberman Republican. I love Lieberman, but he's a Democrat (for the moment, recognizing that he may be forced out at some point). He and Giuliani both would fit nicely in a Democratic Party that had not gone completely crazy.
But it has gone completely crazy.
And we're in a war. The bottom line is we need someone prepared to lead us through. None of the Democrats running will be capable of doing that, and none of them want to. As much as I don't like Giuliani, he will fight, I believe. Some of the lesser lights running on the Republican side will not have the guts to take the pounding that a war will bring. Giuliani does, Hunter does, Gingrich does.
But a "Lieberman Republican" in the White House for most of a decade would definitely cause us no end of heart-burn, something like Swartzenegger in California, but with a bigger stage to play on. So I'm going to push for my candidates during the primary. But if its Giuliani, come November 08, versus some Democrat trying to out-Murtha Murtha, its an easy choice.
The one problem I see with your logic is that the "we're in a war" sentiment is not likely to go over well in 2008 regardless of who the GOP candidate is. I mean -- what's Rudy Giuliani's "we're in a war" campaign going to look like, and how would it be any more successful in 2008 than it would have been in 2006?
"I was really looking forward to reading the dirt on Kerik through your links, but really, there doesn't seem to be much there there."
Nice to hear a voice of reason and an open mind.
I was also trying to elicit some evidence from a credible source that there was form of illegal,ity or malfeasance regarding Giulaini Partners and Kerik. All I got were links to left-leaning or outright Socialists/Communists publications and websites filled with innuendos.
Examples:
Newsday - a Long Island, NY leftist tabloid
New York Magazine - a NYC Leftist magazine
MSNBC - Keith Olbermann's cable news network
The Nation - a Socialist/Communist magazine
Workingforchange.com - a Socialist/Communist website calling for the impeachment of Chaney and Bush
I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other on Rudy, just an appreciation of your objectivity. Thanks.
Liz...Do you really have an Aunt Tilly? :^)
And the various stories that clouded his appointment to the Homeland Security post (the corruption investigation, his hiring an illegal alien for a nanny, etc.) actually obscured the real story behind his removal from consideration for that position.
His nomination was quashed by the Bush administration after some pretty damning information was sent to the White House indicating that Kerik had an open warrant for his arrest from a New York court at the time he was being considered for such a vital position in the Executive Branch of the Federal government.
Just think about that one for a second.
LOL. Thanks, jla.
Well Howdy :-)
I actually meant here in WYoming, guess I should learn to be more specific LOL
You're looking at "we're in a war" as a campaign ploy, and I agree its not going to sell very well. The Dems ran against the war rather successfully, and will again in '08. Any pro-war candidate is going to be a tough sell. We'd better get used to the sound of President OBama.
I don't mean it as a campaign ploy, obviously. I mean it as a statement of fact, we're in a war. Whether we win lose or draw in Iraq, whether we throw down our rifles and flee into the sea, this is a war that will continue for probably the best part of the next two decades. If Hunter wins, if Obama wins, this war continues. The question isn't whether we will have war, the question is who will lead the country during the second trimester of a long war.
I want someone who has a clue. I'm still hoping Bolton will enter the fray, although I frankly have no idea where he stands on any social issue of the day. I know pretty much where he is on the war, however. He is my dream candidate for Secretary of State. I have read some of Hunter's discussions, and he strikes me as a serious man who does have a clue. Gingrich is our Philosopher King, who may occasionally be too smart for his own good, but he gets it on the war. I know you don't like Giuliani, and I don't either, but he is clear minded on the war.
McCain is my "not even if he's the last Republican on earth" candidate. I wouldn't vote for him even if he was the last Republican on earth.
When I was in college, I had a psych professor who presented the following situation: Everyone in the world made $50,000/yr - everyone was equal. Then you, and a few others got a raise and now earned $50,050/yr. Because you now made more, you were now "rich", while everyone else was "poor". Often, poverty is more psychological than anything else.
No one likes turning their backs on those who are truly in need and Americans are among the most generous people in the world. But, we aren't responsible for all the ills in the world, nor are we responsible for the fact that too many dictators are too accomplished at stealing from those whom they rule. We can't fix the truly poor people of the world.
Neither the symbolism nor the words of the Statue of Liberty have changed. When immigrants by the thousands flowed into the US through Ellis Island, they were vetted by the immigration people there. Most were allowed in, but some were turned back. However, there is a very distinct difference between the illegals today and the immigrants of yesteryear. Those immigrants came to be part of America; to take part and assimilate American society. They brought their skills, abilities and desires to make America better when they came.
The majority of the illegals bring none of those ideals with them when they cross the border. Some come because they truly believe that they are re-settling land that still belongs to Mexico. Some come to earn a better living here than they can in Mexico. They take the bulk of the money they earn here and send it to Mexico where the government gets a large percentage of it. That's why exporting illegals is such a major Mexican product today. In fact, it's a $20 billion dollar business and the Mexican government doesn't have to do anything to get the money. Sounds to me as though both the US AND the Mexican government are exploiting these people.
If we really wanted to help the illegals, we would encourage the Mexican government to develop jobs and industries that would allow the illegals to stay at home with their families, with jobs that allowed them to provide for those families. Instead, by allowing them to come here and pretending that they don't exist, we injure Americans AND the illegals. Because the illegals will work for lower wages, American wages in certain industries are kept artificially low - so low that the Americans who would ordinarily perform these jobs can't afford to live on the wages being paid to the illegals. Instead, we get platitudes and nonsense about "jobs that Americans won't do."
Perhaps you haven't noticed it but many of the illegals not only haven't assimilated, they have no intention of assimilating. They bring their culture and customs and refuse to honor or respect ours. They won't learn our language, demanding, instead, that we learn theirs. They gradually bring blight to the neighborhoods they occupy as they transform it from an American neighborhood into the type of neighborhood they left behind.
Taken on an individual basis, the illegals are mostly nice people but, as a group, they are an invading army whose fundamental intent is to take the southwestern US and return it to Mexico. If they were willing to come to America legally, assimilate and become part of this Republic, this would be very a different story. But, as criminals, they believe that they are entitled to walk in and make themselves at home. They aren't, anymore than if they personally walked into your house, sat down in your favorite chair, turned on the TV, told you to bring them a beer while they watch a Spanish language station and prevent you from watching football on your own TV.
But, take this a step further. Suppose that turnabout were fair play and you crossed illegally into Mexico, demanded that they speak English to you, etc., etc. How do you think it would turn out? According to Mexican law, you would be arrested and, eventually, deported. They wouldn't provide you with any of the treatment that they demand that we provide the illegals here.
America and the Statue of Liberty still stand for freedom and we still welcome those who want to come here legally. But no nation, particularly this one, will long survive when it allows itself to be invaded and settled by those whose intentions are not to be participants, but only squatters. And, by allowing people about whom we know nothing, especially in a post-9/11 world, to come unchallenged into the country, we are all at risk. Often, they carry diseases that have mostly been eliminated from the US for at least 60 years or more. And, who knows who is sneaking in with them disguised as Mexicans. We know of some al-Qaida members who have snuck into the country, but how many more are there that we DON'T know about?
These, david, are among the reasons that we cannot allow them to continue coming in . . . . . or to stay once they are discovered. They simply don't belong here and they are criminals.
You had me believing you wanted to have a rational discussion until here...
Are you saying that Giulini's crack down on illegal street drug sales,porno bookstores,prostitution, homeless street bums, etc. are Liberal policies? Reforming the Welfare system is Liberal? I can name ONE issue (there are more) where Bloomberg is governing differently than Giuliani. Take the recent case of the guy that was shot to death outside a club by undercover cops. Bloomberg went to Al Sharpton's headquarters, kissed Sharpton's rear end and condemned the cops involved in the shooting. Giuliani would never had done that. When Dinkins was mayor the cops were seen as a racist occupying army and they were restrained from using force against rioters. Under Giuliani there were no riots because the Sharptons knew that the handcuffs were off the police.
There are literally dozens of articles, ranging from the Washington Post to the Washington Times. If you weren't so lazy you would read them and decide for yourself, rather than shoot the messenger. You aren't changing any basic facts or disproving a single charge against Kerik or Giuliani by trying to discount the media outlet that reports the stories. You are responding just like the Democrat operatives for the Clintons. You still have not proven one line has been untrue!
You have been drinking the Kool-Aid of the Giuliani liberals.
There is no requirement to join in this race now. Find someone else to argue that with.
"Overall, this vanity reminds me of FR as it was during the pre-Bush era. A constitutional forum, committed to certain principles of the Founders. As long as we have vanities like this one, the old FreeRepublic still survives. I only wish some of the expedience-oriented Republicans of the Bush era had half the common sense and principle shown in this essay."
Every now and then, FReepers make me proud. This vanity was one of those moments.
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.