America's Mayor? Maybe. But America's President?

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | November 15, 2006 | Mark Coultan

[fkabuckeyesrule]

America's Mayor? Maybe. But America's President?

So Rudy Giuliani has announced his intention to run for president. Well, to be exact, he has formed an organisation to explore a bid for the presidency.

When Giuliani's marriage collapsed, he moved in with two gay men and a Chihuahua named Bonnie. Is America ready for this man?

His announcement came as no great surprise, as he has been scratching his chin about this for 12 months. That didn't stop the New York tabloids from giving him front-page treatment.

The Daily News headline was "Rudy, Set, Go!" The New York Post said: "Count me in".

The New York Times thought it was worth eight paragraphs on page 18. It was next to a story about the other Republican front-runner John McCain. The two of them are the only Republicans whom opinion polls show could beat Hillary Clinton.

Giuliani actually topped McCain in a CNN poll this week, 29 per cent to 27 per cent.

Even five years after September 11, Giuliani retains the afterglow of his steadfast handling of the terrorist attacks, although a recent book Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, by Dan Collins and Wayne Barrett, attempted to rewrite the story of "America's mayor".

It's only a week since the midterm elections, but, in America's endless cycle of politics, everybody is now talking about the 2008 presidential election. Already one Democrat, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, and one Republican, Duncan Hall, have announced they are running. Both are asterisks in the opinion polls.

A Giuliani-Clinton contest would be a rerun of what should have been the contest for the Senate seat in New York in 2000. But Giuliani withdrew after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. The Daily News called the potential match-up "the race we've dreamed of".

It may be for New York, which hasn't had a real presidential contender for a generation or more, but is it the race America dreams of?

Rudy v Hil would give America the choice of two pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control candidates. Giuliani has been married three times (as The Daily News reminded readers, when one of his marriages collapsed, he moved in with two gay men and a Chihuahua named Bonnie), while Hillary has lived a thousand lives in her marriage to Bill Clinton.

Giuliani faces an uphill struggle to win his party's nomination, where Christian conservatives make up a vital part of the membership base.

Clinton would find it easier to win her party's endorsement, but she might find it harder to convince those same conservatives in a general election. It's early, early days yet, but America's conservative vote is still up for grabs.

Posted by Mark Coultan

November 15, 2006 03:08 PM

[Reagan Man]

>>>>In addition, he outsmarted the teacher's union and got them under control.

Rudy actually added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls. That means, 15,000 new members of the AFT and the NEA. The education system in NYCity remains broken. Rudy fixed nothing.

[spikeytx86]

I did not say he was the savior of the GOP. I personally think he would make a great president. I don't care if he is he has Liberal tendencies. What I do know is that all in all he has been a Loyal Republican and has been a strong fiscal conservative and has the right stands on the GWOT so to me he is among my favorite contenders. He is not the only guy I am looking at.

1. Giuliani
2. Romney
3. Sanford

Is where my list stands at this moment.

"If Rudy didn't support big government, he would have made an EFFORT to slash the budget."

You would have to apply that standard to almost every Republican in elected office in the past 10 years then.

"Add that $4.5 billion deficit "

You mean the deficit after the 9/11 attacks and hard recession? "From what I've read crime began dropping under the Dinkens admin" Yeah they did abit, then they started to drop like a rock under Rudy. Rudy took a city that would make Detroit look like Vermont crime and quality of life wise and turned it into America's Shining Jewel again.

[slaymakerpowertape]

Some New Yorkers (such as myself) would never consider voting for him because of his pre 9/11 management of NYC. This whole Giuliani for President thing utterly baffles me.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>You would have to apply that standard to almost every Republican in elected office in the past 10 years then.

Reagan didn't have control of the House, that means he didn't have control of the purse strings. Yet Reagan was able to reduce welfare state expenditures by some 4% a year over his eight years in office. Reagan then applied those savings to his military buildup. Newt came along with his Contract With America and spending was reduced to its lowest levels in 25 years. And Newt was able to balance the budget in the process and we had a surplus for three years.

When Rudy reduced the welfare rolls, he should have taken those savings and reduced the budget or the debt. When Rudy left office, his admin projected a $2.0 billion deficit. That exploded to $4.5 billion. What part of that was due to 9-11, I don't know. Good leadership makes the right adjustments. Crime dropped under Rudy, and went down even further under Mike Bloomberg. That doesn't mean I'm willing to vote for Mayor Mike for Prez.

You know what I think. I think you're a closet liberal.

[Reagan Man]

[spikeytx86]

"You know what I think. I think you're a closet liberal."

Yep I am a pelosi plant.

Is it even remotely possible to have a debate on a presidential contender around here without being labeled a liberal because we disagree?

"Reagan didn't have control of the House, that means he didn't have control of the purse strings. Yet Reagan was able to reduce welfare state expenditures by some 4% a year over his eight years in office."

I said going back a decade. Today's Republican Party and the Republican Party of Reagan and Gingrich are very different parties. Also don't forget Reagan had the support of "Reagan Democrats" in which were quite sizable giving him a defacto majority on a lot of issues.

From the end of the government shut down on it has been downhill for fiscal discipline in Washington and you know it.

Again if a Reagenesque conservative enters the race then I will most likely back him. But there ain't no one like that on the scene. So if it is between Giuliani or McCain then I am going Giuliani. You never no it could be like the 92' democratic primary where all the big candidates dropped out and a relative no body came along and took the nomination. It could happen to us this time around. But as of today my money is with Giuliani. As the race starts to get underway a year from now I may be backing someone else. If we cant debate who our leader is going to be without delving into paranoia and attacking each other then we are f**k'd as a party.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Good Lord, Son, my damned cat is older than you are, of course you don't care if "he has liberal tendencies".
This RINO takeover movement is going to wreck the GOP, things are already gone too far to the left. Rudy did not become a Republican because of strong personal convictions, he switched as a political expedient. All he changed is the letter after his name. He could, and would, switch back tomorrow, for the same reason, and think nothing of it.

[spikeytx86]

What liberal talking points am I spouting?

You also realize he was an U.S. Attorney under the Reagan Administration Right?

With all do respect sir, I have been nothing but respectful in our little conversation and I expect the same in return. Are the only tactics you have left is to smear me?

[spikeytx86]

"Rudy did not become a Republican because of strong personal convictions, he switched as a political expedient"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah we all know the way to get elected in NYC is to become a Republican HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA.

Again I think this is the third time on this string alone I have said if a Conservative in Reagan's mold enters the race I will more then Likely back him (or her). But right now it stands between him and McCain and I ain't backing McCain!

[Reagan Man]

>>>>Is it even remotely possible to have a debate on a presidential contender around here without being labeled a liberal because we disagree?

I'm very civil when it comes to discussing Gingrich, Romney, McCain and the others. Not when it comes to Rudy the liberal. Sorry.

>>>>Today's Republican Party and the Republican Party of Reagan and Gingrich are very different parties.

Wonder why? Reagan set the standard for conservatives, and Gingrich advanced the Reagan agenda even further. It was up to Bush to take it to the next level. Bush`s domestic agenda took the GOP leftward. Too much spending, expansion of the federal bureaucracy, increase in the welfare state and promoting liberal immigration reform.

>>>Again if a Reagenesque conservative enters the race then I will most likely back him.

That's good to hear.

>>>> ... if it is between Giuliani or McCain then I am going Giuliani.

That's not good to hear. Giuliani makes McCain look like a staunch rightwinger.

>>>>If we cant debate who our leader is going to be without delving into paranoia and attacking each other then we are f**k'd as a party.

Paranoia? LOL I'm not about to toss away my conservative principles, just because you've lost your mind. I was born and raised in Brooklyn of the 50`s and 60`s, and I grew up with guys like Rudy. I know what makes them tick. Rudy is a liberal to his core convictions. Rudy doesn't have a conservative bone in his body.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I will vote for Rudy when he gets the Sullivan Act overturned and stops supporting abortion on demand. Just when do you expect that to happen?

[Reagan Man]

Talk about paranoid. LOL

In my post at #25, Reagan is talking to Giuliani.

[lndrvr1972]

You have to remember NYC has had the Sullivan Act since 1931 I believe, that has had made it very difficult for the public to own firearms. Just thank the 18th ammendmant for that.

[spikeytx86]

"That's not good to hear. Giuliani makes McCain look like a staunch rightwinger."

I like McCain's stanch on Iraq and Defense in general but that is about where it ends. Giuliani is for a Republican Candidate on the liberal side (though no Rockefeller) however McCain is a flip flopper in the first degree. "Wonder why? Reagan set the standard for conservatives, and Gingrich advanced the Reagan agenda even further. It was up to Bush to take it to the next level. Bush`s domestic agenda took the GOP leftward. Too much spending, expansion of the federal bureaucracy, increase in the welfare state and promoting liberal immigration reform. " No argument here.

[Reagan Man]

Over the years, Rudy has called for more gun control laws and a federal ban on assault weapons. Rudy isn't a true supporter of the 2nd amendment and the RKBA.

[spikeytx86]

I don't believe I ever asked you to back him, could you show me where I did?

And though at this moment I do back Giuliani (In which could change depending on who actually enters the race) My original post in the section was just setting the record straight that he did not support big government. That's it.

[spikeytx86]

My apologies. Since you labeled me as a liberal in your post before that I thought you were referring to me.

[Reagan Man]

Take my word for it. Rudy fits the mold of a Rockefeller Republican. I'm not on my main PC right now so I can't get to a quote from Rudy where he calls himself a Rockefeller Republican, in the mold of Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller. Nuts!

[stockstrader]

And if Rudy wanted to do the country and the Republican Party a big favor--
he should have run against Hillary for the Senate!!

He could have done the country (and the state of NY) a great deal of good in that role, while remaining true to his 'obvious liberal leanings' as a New York senator.

I don't think that anyone (even here) would have opposed Rudy 'dethroning' Hillary. I would have thought that NY would have been perfect for him, easy pickings--after all, they know him best and his liberal positions would have been very in-tune with NY!!!

He could have defeated her,,,and THEN ran for President. He might even have gotten a few more conservatives to support his run if he had taken care of Hillary first.

But then again, his liberal leanings are not too far away from those of Hillary anyway. So I suspect he figured the 'status quo' was just fine in NY--no need to make a change there at all.

He'll never get my vote.

[spikeytx86]

I know the man has faults. But my feelings right now Is our Nation needs a leader and as of this moment I can think of no one better. Many in the party hated Eisenhower too, Goldwater called his administration a "Dime Store New Deal" but can you honestly say he was not a excellent leader? Reagan as governor of California governed much more liberally then when he was President. Some people change. I can't say Rudy has, I pray he has, but I cant say that he has because it would be a lie. He has not released any policy positions yet so I can not make a final decision yet. I pray for our party and nation to find our next Reagan not for Rudy to get the nomination.

You have no Idea how much I am praying for a Reagan 2 to come out of the shadow's, but I just can't think of one Republican out there that fits the bill. If you do dear god share it with the rest of us!