Rudy a Lefty? Yeah, Right.

The Washington Post ^ | October 28, 2007 | David Greenberg

[libstripper]

You wouldn't know it from reading the papers, but the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination is a confirmed right-winger. On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.

That candidate is Rudolph W. Giuliani.

As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.

[Grunthor]

Are you honestly going to make a case that Bush or Rudy are better conservatives than Reagan?

[Grunthor]

“Bush-era conservatism” — kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?”

Some kind of moron, anyway.

[Hydroshock]

Jorge is not a conserative, he is a rockefeller republican.

[Grunthor]

Great post, if this was stated by Fred, Duncan or Tancredo at the next debate, I’d be standing and applauding!

[Grunthor]

“Jorge is not a conserative, he is a rockefeller republican.”

RNC = Republican, Not Conservative.

[Hydroshock]

Sums it up nicely.

[Smokin' Joe]

Joe will stay home, or go fishing. He just WILL NOT hold his nose to vote for somebody. Trust me.

You got real. Give Rudy the nomination, and after one flash of Rudy in a dress (likely to be the most used MSM image after September 1, '08), and the average guy in flyover country will be somewhere besides the polls on election day.

It is a pity so many Republicans feel the need to compete with the Democrats for the Democrat base, but that seems to be what is happening.

In the meantime, conservatives are expected to wish in one hand and watch the other fill up.

[Eagles Talon IV]

They’re just labels and you’re suicidal.

[dangus]

Just as I suspected. You all have no clue what you are talking about, relying on text-proofed media accounts for your opinions.

The Liberal Party sided with Giuliani in 1989. Sadecki, that they sided with a vast underdog in 1989 devestates your theory that they did so to gain access to the winner, doesn’t it?

When else did they go against Democrats? True, they opposed Koch in 1977. BECAUSE HE WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE. They sided with Mario Cuomo, instead. Sound like a conservative choice to you? Then there was 1969, when they backed John Lindsay, whom I’m sure jonathanmo’s source counts as supporting the Republican. Lindsay was booted out of the Republican Party, which prefered the DEMOCRAT to him, because he was FURTHER TO THE LEFT THAN THE DEMOCRATS.

In fact, the Liberal Party was so angry at Koch for being too moderate, they consistently endorsed his opponents.

Against Koch (who supported Bush), for Lindsay (who criticized even Johnson for being too conservative), for Giuliani... Not exactly a pattern of moderation.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"We who refuse to vote pro-abortion based on our relligious beliefs are concerned with the Word of God and the afterlife.

That is FAR more important than ANYTHING that could possibly happen in this world."

So in the name of your God you are willing to get all of us killed? You are no different then the crazed savage ragheads.

[Smokin' Joe]

I believe it is customary to ping someone on this forum when you talk about them.

Funny how there were all sorts of little operations going on with very dark (OK, not black, the interior designer 'thaid it wath a dark charcoal gray') helicopters, practicing urban warfare--in towns in the US. Not to mention the thermal scanning for drug labs...

But then, I have noticed a fair number of people who will not believe "anecdotal evidence" that the dam has burst until the water is swirling sround their knees.

[Grunthor]

“So in the name of your God you are willing to get all of us killed? You are no different then the crazed savage ragheads.”

I’d like to introduce everyone to the 2008 nominee for DRAMA QUEEN OF THE YEAR.

[jonathanmo]

Hey, I provided you with a link for some context. The Liberal Party in NYC is a mixed bag, but the way ballots are in NYC, the more lines you get on, the more votes you get.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want. It's my experience that people from outside of NYC have no idea the dynamics involved in NYC politics. You can't make a bumper stumper out of it, it is much more complicated.

[Sadecki]

The Liberal Party sided with Giuliani in 1989

That is true. I had forgot about that since Rudy had lost that election. No matter the alliance between Rudy and the Liberal party was a political one, not an ideological one.

here's why -- A liberal party endorsement of a democrat does nothing to tender favors or get access from a democratic mayour since most democrats are liberals anyway. On the other hand, a liberal endorsement of a GOP candidate, allows democrats to vote for the republican by voting for a liberal.

What;s interesting about all this is that Rudy never gave liberals much access at all -- and he ripped apart the welfare infrastructure, and cracked down on the homeless and petty crimes in poor neighborhoods which are core issues for liberals in NYC. There's a good article about this political gamesmanship that is SOP in NYC politics because it is such a diverse political environment.

here's the link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF1639F937A15757C0A9679C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Harding,%20Raymond%20B.

[Sadecki]

here;s that link to the article which discusses what the Liberal Party in NYC is about — since you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that jsut don’t hold water.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF1639F937A15757C0A9679C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Harding,%20Raymond%20B.

[Hydroshock]

No fed up with both parties.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Sometimes strong prose is needed to get through the fog of the brains of some here on the FR. It is akin to hitting a Jackass with a 2x4 in order to gain his attention.

Perhaps you also fall into this class.

[Harvey105]

I won’t. There’s not enough difference between Rudy and (most likely) Hillary for him to get my vote.

[Harvey105]

Stunning argument and great way to win people to your side.

/sarcasm

[stockstrader]

I agree 100%!!.

It's absolutely OUTRAGEOUS to think that we need a liberal to fight the WOT. It also totally absurd to think that JulieAnnie is the only (or even best) Republican to aggressively fight the WOT (Paul doesn't even count).

What would Rudy do differently than President Bush in the WOT?

Push more gun control?

Sue gun manufacturers?

Expand sanctuary cities?

Encourage more illegal immigration by telling illegals that they are not really illegal?

Allow gays to openly serve in the military?

Make solid appointments to important positions like his recommendation to President Bush of Bernie Kerik to head Homeland Security?

Put an emergency command center in the most likely target (like he did in NY)?