Posted on 02/23/2007 7:05:51 PM PST by 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.
Newt.
And voting for a third-party conservative gets you...liberalism.
Which is why we need to work NOW before primary season for someone like Newt, or Hunter, or whatever...
And voting for a third-party conservative gets you...liberalism.
Which is why we need to work NOW before primary season for someone like Newt, or Hunter, or whatever...
This from a Freeper who helped pushed Schwarzenegger on us.
HEre you go again. Would you have preferred Angelides, who by now would have signed the homosexual marriage bill, which Arnold vetoed before and said he'll veto again; also ?Angelides would have signed the REAL socialized government as single payer bill that the Legislature passed and Arnold vetoed.
In the name of phony conservatism YOU are helping the most leftist Democrats take over states and the entire country.
Did you get out and vote straight Republican ticket in 2006?
If not, YOU contributed to the Dem takeover of the US Congress and look what they are doing -- trying to kill us all, by emboldening the terrorists.
Good deal! If you work the same magic for whoever opposes Rudy that you worked for Alan Keyes, then we might as well start singing hail to chief! How much does the Rudy campaign owe you for this service?
I can really see her appointing Bill.
"...Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments."
I can really see her appointing Bill.
I wouldn't be surprised either. And the Dem Senate would enthusiastically confirm him.
Sen. Clinton speaks - Bill Clinton "the most popular person in the world right now''
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1790336/posts
I guess she is going for the "2 for 1 copresidency" approach.
The thing I've noticed about FReeper supporters of Rudy...the majority of them are women or seem to use feminine nicknames.
The other thing I've noticed...this is not the forum I entered in 2004. It's no longer a conservative platform. It's dominated by RINOs, East Coast RINOs who think they and their New York candidate know what's good for the rest of us. Who knew that FReepers supported abortion, gun control and homosexuality? I've seen every excuse for this man with all his liberal philosophies. It's sickening, and there's a long haul to go before it finally ends. By that time, you won't know the difference between FR and DU.
I am not saying to "accept" homosexuality, or anything of the sort. Homosexuality is a sin, and Homosexuals are sinners, but that still gives us no excuse to be hateful.
I could really care less who he shared a place to live, but he helped raise moeny for Stonewall Vets, a militant gay group with ties to an anti-warr communist group. That's not so cool.
I think the cultural phenom has to do with the celebrity nature of popularity, where you end up choosing a person over principles or core beliefs. I wouldn't call it sickening, but it feels out of place.
A rather uninspiring frosh Senator with little accomplishments is now the Democrats new JFK. Obama attracted 15,000 people in Austin. 18 months prior to an election? That's a bit incredible. Democrats are desperately seeking 'freshness' as a way out of their own policy dilemmas, and now Barack is in the media hype tornado.
Some here advocate Rudy because he is a celebrity who was there on 9/11. others because is popular, which strikes me as circular reasoning. He is popular for some good reasons, only a few of whom have anything to do with how he would rate as a pro-freedom conservative President and CinC. His mayoral track record is the only and best real selling point; much good and some bad there. Still, its obvious the party's Mod Squad like him because he is *NOT* a conservative, and want to use him as a way to 'take back' the party from the Reagan wing. What better way than a celebrity candidate a la Arnold.
That path will lead to an easier victory for the celebrity and the ruination of the rank-and-file and grassroots consrvative activism, and ultimately the GOP itself, turned upside down by the faddish pursuit of personality over core values. Fads change.
For Liberals, it is easy to follow the hype. They have the media on their side to shape perception. Obama shucks the jive of 'get along' moderation and policially correct pop-speak, but his core is orthodox left-liberal multi-culturalism. This is sold (wrongly) by the media as 'cant we all just get along', when in fact it is poison to traditional core American values. The liberals are safe.
Conservatives are not so safe. Any politician who is not energically opposed to the tidal media/academia/culture pull from the left gets pulled by the tide. And we conservatives are left high and dry by politicians who abandon us.
For conservatives who distrust the 'demos' in democracy, adhere to 'principles first', and think cults of personality are dangerous, these are not happy times. When conservatives say "we need another Reagan" they mean this: We need a true conservative who can communicate outside the boundaries of our base in ways that bends others toward conservative values through persuasion rather than contorting conservative values to curry favor with the popular will. A statesman-leader is someone who can tame the popular will and not be a slave to it.
I still haven't found what I'm looking for
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-should-be-our-next-president.html
FairOpinion, who give a rats ass who you are voting for?
"you won't know the difference between FR and DU. "
Sad, but true, many posters in both places are pulling out all stops in their support of Hillary and defeat of the Republican candidate and you seem to be one of them.
==
No it's not. It's drying up the money for a conservative alternative.
Rudy is a shill for the globo-corporate media drive to assure that Hillary is elected.
==
I believe you are absolutely right.
I've already thought this through. I could never vote for Rudy in the primary. He's far too socially liberal.
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.