Thinking Hard About Voting For Rudy Guiliani

The Bulletin ^ | Feb. 22, 2007 | Maggie Gallagher

[FairOpinion]

I've never voted for Rudy Giuliani in my life. But I'm thinking hard about it now.

In both cases, I surprise myself.

The rest of America may know Rudy as "America's Mayor" for his ceremonial performance post-9/11, but for New Yorkers who lived through the Dinkins years, Rudy Giuliani is more than a guy who stands tall when the skyscrapers fall. By the late '90s, people were beginning to say that New York City was ungovernable: Remember the court-driven interest group spending, the disorder, the bums taking over the parks and the playgrounds and the street corners, spiraling welfare costs, the crime, the small business disaster, the high taxes, rent control, the South Bronx? New York was a disaster area, a poster child for what liberalism hath wrought.

The glittering cosmopolitan New York City we now live in, the one seemingly every college student in America dreams about moving to, is largely Rudy's gift, forged in the face of intense, daily, nasty invective from those who at the time insisted that to demand order and civility in a large city was to be a fascist.

Even Rudy's 9/11 performance tends to be misdescribed. It was not that he "stood tall" or didn't emotionally collapse. George Bush came to New York City and made graceful speeches about how we will rebuild the hole in the ground that still remains. What stood out for us in that dark time was not that the mayor of New York insisted we would triumph over this adversity, but that he didn't try to spin us about how unimaginably bad this sort of adversity was. He didn't try to soft-pedal the uncertainty, the chaos, the suffering the city was going through, and that gave us the confidence to believe that reality, terrible as it was, could in fact be faced.

I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. I don't look for purity in politicians, just for some small pro-life reason to vote for a guy: Medicaid funding, parental notification, partial birth abortion. Throw me the slightest lifeline, otherwise I assume he just doesn't want the vote of people like me. Rudy never did. So I never gave him my vote. And of course it doesn't help now to recall the way Rudy treated his second wife, nor do I particularly want to imagine the third Mrs. Giuliani as Laura Bush's successor.

So I could have sworn, even a few months ago, that I'd never vote for Rudy Giuliani, in spite of my deep respect for his considerable achievements as mayor. So why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments.

When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle. It's hard to see a state that George Bush won in which Rudy Giuliani will not beat Hillary Clinton. And he will put a whole slew of new blue states into play: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, to name just three. (The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani in a dead heat with Clinton in Connecticut.) Which puts people like me, who care very deeply about marriage and life issues, in the position of thinking hard about Rudy.

[Jorge]

Honest to God, is that all you have?

ShadowDancer obvously can't challenge your response.

[editor-surveyor]

Please don't post any Rudy threads until hell thaws out.

[spikeytx86]

So you are going on the record as stating you will not back the Republican Nominee regardless? And this does not make you a rino?

I will not take your pledge either, I will support the Republican Nominee Regardless of litmus test* (excluding hagel). I am Republican all the way in 08. I could take your pledge if you changed it to;

"I,as a conservative, will fight for the candidate who will represent and fight for the majority of our values, however I will support the Republican nominee regardless if he was not the one I was backing as the ultimate goal is to defeat the home of liberalism and moral relativism, the Democratic Party."

If you accept, I take that pledge.

[FairOpinion]

"Please don't post any Rudy threads until h*ll thaws out."


===

I hate to inform you that h*ll has thawed out a long time ago and it's quite warm down there now. Must be all that global warming.

So even by your criteria, I can merrily post away. :)

[Jorge]

What's wrong with it now is spineless people like you, one's too afraid to stand up and say you've had enough because, by golly, you might be banned from an internet site.

OK. I'll stand up and say right now "I've had ENOUGH" of self-righteous phoney Bush bashing blow-hards like you.

[dman4384]

Not me.

Rudy or Hillary may very well win the presidency.

In both cases that would put a left wing gun grabbing abortion loving, gay friendly liberal in the whitehouse.

Come 2008, Ill cast my vote for a conservative.

I surely hope that a conservative wins the Republican nomination. If not, a conservative will still win my vote.

[ShadowDancer]

ROTFLMAO. I have replied ten-fold but I am being called out for not responding to a stupid duck comment? Keep talking, Jorge, you're giving the opposition plenty of ammunition.

[spikeytx86]

And the innocent life of say a nuked major city does not count?

And what outside of judges (he favors scalia and alito styled judges) can the president do about it, especially with a Dem house and senate?

The battle to stop abortion is in the court rooms and legislators across America, not in congress or the White House.

[Old_Mil]

There are several - since they've been pointed out several times, I'll call them - lies that Rudy supporters like to throw out there and they should be addressed.

(1) Rudy's the only electable candidate. Wrong. It has been explained over and over that people who care about traditional values simply will not vote for a candidate who is the mirror image of Hillary on such issues. As a result, he's bound to lose. This has been explained to you people now, while you still have the opportunity to abandon his candidacy and support a sensible conservative candidate. Your response is to insist that he will win and alternatively blame people who don't support him (4/5ths of the party) for electing Hillary. Perhaps your support of such a divisive figure is to blame to begin with.

(2) Rudy's the logical choice to lead the war on terror. I'm not sure where this delusion originated - perhaps a CNN interview. The man has no military experience. He has no foreign policy experience. He's never even held statewide office. He's the least logical choice to lead the WOT out there, and on par with Bill Clinton.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that he's going to get killed in a general election so the only logical conclusion is Rudy supporters are, in fact, Hillary supporters.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I forgot the sarcasm tag. I know he wore a dress to a fundraiser, but certain muckrakers here are making a big deal out of nothing...

[airborne]

"Rudy - The lesser of two evils!"

[ShadowDancer]

Well, thanks for playing, sweetie pie.

[spikeytx86]

My apologies :) have a good night.

[Marine Inspector]

A liberal Rudy can't be trusted to appoint good judges any more then a liberal Hilary can.

[KDD]

He/she will stack the court with judges more liberal than Ruth Bater Ginsburg.

Rudy has said he will appoint Judges in the category of a John Roberts or a Sam Alito. It is interesting to see what other sitting SC Judge he considers in that category. He has stated...

"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [John Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category. I mean, she was -- she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her."
Rudy Giuliani ["Hannity & Colmes", Fox News Network, 7/20/05

So explain why you think his choices will be a Roberts and not a Ginsburg. Seems to me he could go either way...and given his political resume, a Ginsburg would more likely be his choice.

[FairOpinion]

The latest poll had Rudy beating Hillary by 9 points: 52 to 43%.

[Marine Inspector]

We don't need to consider losers like Rudy or Romney; We can go for a real candidate that we don't need to hold our nose to vote for.

Amen to that!

[Old_Mil]

I will not support the Republican nominee if it is McCain/Rudy/Romney. Period. I would if it was Hunter, Tancredo, or perhaps Brownback (though I disagree with him on borders). Perhaps Newt.

If defeating the home of liberalism and moral relativism involves becoming a home for liberalism and moral relativism, you can count me out.

[EDINVA]

If you look at the pool from which any large city has to choose its judges, guess what? You are going to get massive numbers of Democrats.

Just look at the D.C. Superior Court where the judges are 'appointed' by the POTUS. You wouldn't like many of Bush's or Reagan's appointees. The Carter/Clinton appointees are only marginally worse.

[upsdriver]

"Who else can beat Hillary, Duncan Hunter? "

Yes, Duncan Hunter!! Beating Hillary isn't the problem. She is extremely beatable.

So Rudy can win! So what? What have we won? We have just sold out every conservative principle just so we can say we won.

Hunter, on the other hand, can also win! And by running on a conservative agenda, A REAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA BY A REAL CONSERVATIVE, we could honestly be excited about governing.

And we would still be the pro-life party.