Skip to comments.A Vote for Rudy: Why Giuliani should be president
Posted on 12/08/2006 2:36:29 PM PST by Uncledave
A Vote for Rudy Why Giuliani should be president
I have voted against Rudy Giuliani, and I have voted for him. Voting for him is better; its what I hope conservatives, Republicans, and Americans will do in 2008.
Giuliani formed a presidential exploratory committee after the midterm elections, formally entering campaign land, in which every utterance by and about him will be analyzed and its potential effect polled. Not that it hasnt been going on for years. My favorite of the early reax to Rudy was flagged by columnist Deroy Murdock: An anti-Giuliani website, SayNoToRudy.org, posted by social conservatives in Ohio, pulled the plug on itself after deciding that Mr. Giuliani is truly a committed Republican and an accomplished conservative on many issues. But in estimating Giulianis worth it is less useful to say what people say about him; more useful to examine his past, and his character.
Giuliani won his first election in 1993, in his second race for mayor of New York. He had made his name as a scourge of high-profile criminals when he was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York (19839), hammering the five families, crooked Democratic bosses, and Michael Milken. Yet conservatives had reason not to vote for him: His social views were liberal he was for abortion and gay rights and his opinions on political economy were untried. He ran with the endorsement of New Yorks tiny Liberal party. To run against him, the less-tiny Conservative party picked George Marlin, a scholarly Catholic, and an investment banker who knew his financial nuts and bolts. (He is also a friend of mine.) Marlin could only tip the election to Democratic incumbent David Dinkins, but he made the case for the politics of purity: Hold out until we get Mr. Right, instead of holding our noses in the voting booth.
I heeded Marlins call, and so cast the unwisest vote of my life. Giuliani won in a close race, and then proceeded to save the city. When I see the shoals of kids in Union Square, fresh from their new NYU dorms or packed like sardines in nearby apartments, I know they cannot imagine what the square was like in 1993, when they were toddlers: raggedy bushes, lawns of packed dirt, and hollow-eyed weirdos muttering Smokes, smokes. New Yorks poor neighborhoods were far worse, as innocents were robbed, murdered, and felled by the stray fusillades of drug dealers.
Everyone acknowledges Giulianis achievement. (Perhaps the most eloquent tribute is the silent imitation of his successor, Michael Bloomberg, who, despite his billionaires arrogance, has continued Giulianis success by continuing with his methods.) But how Giuliani succeeded initially is still not well understood.
Rudolph GiulianiAdmedia/Sipa The crime position of conservatives since the Sixties was simple: Jail the crooks. Candidate Marlin told audiences he would put them on barges if he had to. Yet Mario Cuomo, New Yorks liberal Democratic governor, was building prisons at a great rate, and still the crime rate soared. The solution to New Yorks (and the nations) crime problem lay in asking which crooks should be pursued, and what conclusions could be drawn from their activity. A revolution in policing had begun with a pair of academics, George Kelling and James Q. Wilson, and a handful of smart cops in New York and Boston William Bratton, Jack Maple, John Timoney. They emphasized the importance of recapturing the public space by nabbing petty offenders who often turned out to be major ones, and by tracking the ebb and flow of crime patterns daily, the better to react quickly. But you had to have your ears open to know this was going on. City Journal, the policy magazine of the conservative urban-affairs think tank the Manhattan Institute, ran articles by Kelling and others on the new policing in the early Nineties. Fred Siegel, Americas only witty urbanologist, brought them to Mayor Dinkinss attention. He brushed me off.
Not Giuliani. He is much more wonkish and intellectual than people give him credit for, Siegel says. Because of the tough-guy exterior, they dont notice. There is a lot of Newt in him: Lets take this apart and see how it works. Siegel also calls him a Republican Clinton. Clinton, who never held a position he would not betray? Siegel admits the difference. Giuliani is not poll first and act later. He is, Let me figure this out and bring people along.
The mayor of New York, unlike other mayors, is a powerful official, but he does not operate in a vacuum. Giuliani showed what Siegel calls administrative imagination, looking for effective levers in the bureaucracy, as opposed to formal ones. He cultivated members of the City Council small fry, compared with congressmen, but with egos equally big. The courts he waited out. They were wired for the ACLU, as Siegel puts it, so Giuliani would stake out a position e.g., zoning XXX shops into remote corners then fight delaying actions when his policies were challenged. In the court of public opinion, he waged war on liberalism, as articulated by the New York Times. He mocked them, says Siegel, he made fun of their assumptions.
A FATAL DAY Despite his success and a smashing reelection in 1997 (I supported him this time, along with 57 percent of the voters), Giulianis two terms were boisterous. Imagine eight years of macaca wars. Then came 9/11.
Although everyone was surprised by it, Giuliani was well positioned to grasp what had happened, and to keep a grip on his understanding as the years passed. Giuliani had spoken of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in his first mayoral inaugural address, in a paean to Gotham spunk (New Yorkers of the 1990s have the same ingenuity, sensitivity, talent, and courage that our ancestors had in building our great city). The methods he had used to fight the mob turned out to be essential in cracking the Jersey City terror cell that planned the 1993 bombing, and other attacks. Andy McCarthy, lead prosecutor of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheik, says that the Justice Department used Giulianis RICO paradigm, not focusing on foot soldiers but peeling back the case to big organizations in time and space. Most important was Giulianis moral clarity. Siegels wonk coexists with a man of passion. Giuliani saw this issue early on as very black and white, says McCarthy. Part of what people who dont like Rudy dont like about him is how headstrong he is. In 1995 Giuliani ejected Yasser Arafat from a Lincoln Center concert honoring the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Maybe we should wake people up to the way this terrorist is being romanticized. After 9/11 he returned $10 million from a Saudi prince who had suggested that our Palestinian policy had helped cause the attack. In his speeches Giuliani dates the run-up to 9/11 from the 1985 murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian hijackers.
Then there is the x of leadership, which is more than smarts or passion, or even both together. Woody Allen said 80 percent of success is showing up. One hundred percent of leadership is showing up, and doing the right thing and doing it again, and again, and again. As the years pass, more and more of those kids in Union Square cannot imagine having been in Union Square themselves in the days and weeks after 9/11, and what a witless mob we all were then. The firemen and cops wrote their heroism in ash. Giuliani told the rest of us that we were brave, and thereby encouraged us to be so. The one mistake he made in the aftermath was dallying with the possibility that Albany might waive New York Citys two-term limit, thus allowing him to run again (the terrorists had struck on Primary Day for the 2001 election). George Washington would not have made that mistake, but he couldnt have done the rest of it better.
As in 1993, there are problems. Do you have a few hours? Giuliani is down-the-line pro-abortion, including even partial-birth abortions. I dont see my position on that changing, he said in 1999. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I dont think its ripe for decision at this point, he said in 2004. I certainly wouldnt support [a ban] at this time. As mayor of New York he administered some of the nations toughest laws against gun ownership. His sabbatical from office-holding has allowed him to duck out of the white-hot immigration debate of the last year, but his long-term position has been refried Emma Lazarus. Siegel, his great booster, told National Review Online that Giulianis lax enforcement of immigration laws allowed several of the [9/11] hijackers to operate comfortably in Brooklyn only a few blocks from my house.
Then there are the personal problems, which are sometimes also political. Giulianis first marriage ended with an annulment that was risible even by the standards of the Catholic Church in modern America (he realized, after 14 years, that he and his wife were second cousins). His second marriage exploded in an ugly divorce. The third time may be the charm: Judith Nathan seems to have humanized him a bit, as did a brush with prostate cancer, the killer of his father. He needs humanizing. His ferocious dedication is the obverse of rigidity and repression. Did he repress his memory of his fathers criminal past when he went through his FBI clearances?
His personality is all of a piece. His wife may retrofit some virtues on him, but no one else will. His political problems sit there like turds in a punch bowl. What can social conservatives make of them?
Giuliani left himself some wiggle room in his remarks on gay marriage (at this point, at this time), and a casuist could find it on partial-birth abortion (I dont see . . .). More important, all of his radioactive positions, except on immigration, might be modified by the men and women he nominated as judges. On the eve of the mid-term elections, Giuliani hailed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as model judges, principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench. He called their appointments signs of promises kept.
Social conservatives will be keen to know whom Giuliani will promise to appoint. They already know where he is coming from, and many of them seem to support him nonetheless. The idea that Giulianis strong poll numbers will blow away once people learn his whole record is probably a fantasy. He has been on the national stage for 13 years, and what people dont know they can infer from his incorrigible New York-ness. Many social conservatives have already made a calculation about leadership. The Romans said that in war the laws are silent. Neither Christians nor humanists can believe that. But in war one wants a war leader, who may be otherwise unacceptable. Early in World War II England picked a washed-up journalist with a lot of sleazy friends.
Rudy Giuliani saved a city with a larger population than Arizona, Massachusetts, or Virginia, the states of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George Allen. He helped city and country take a harder blow than Pearl Harbor. These are two serious public achievements, which are two more than anyone else in the 2008 race, Republican or Democrat, can show. Achievement is not an infallible guide to performance in office. Abraham Lincoln, wrote the New York diarist George Templeton Strong, was nominated in 1860 because he cut a great many rails, and he did fine. But achievement or the lack of it is all fate lets us see of our candidates in advance. You can choose a leader. Or you can choose someone else.
Mr. Brookhiser, an NR senior editor, is the author, most recently, of What Would the Founders Do? Our Questions, Their Answers.
If I want a New York Democrat then why wouldn't I just go ahead and vote for Hillary?
The Real Rudy Giuliani:
From Human Events:
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
Soft on Gay Marriage
Other than tax cuts, the biggest domestic issue of the 2004 election was President Bush's support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani has taken a "Kerryesque" position on gay marriage.
Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades" ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:
His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."
Here's more from the New York Daily News:
"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."
Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.
As Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has pointed out, Rudy is an adherent of the same approach to illegal immigration that John McCain, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Harry Reid have championed:
"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."
That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
READ MORE HERE
As I have stated on many other threads about the election of Rudy, I will never vote for him for anything, period!
Didn't take long for the Rudy haters to show up...
Short of the only two choices being Guliani and McCain, I cannot see myself voting for him IN THE PRIMARY.
I agree. Let them post this crap on Guiliani's website instead of intruding on us with this drivel. Rudy's a power mad autocrat who doesn't give a damn about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Bill Clinton with an (R).
If you want an idea of how Giuliani would govern take a look at Arnold of California. They are RINOs of a similar stripe.
If Rudy is the Republican nominee I will hold my nose and vote for him. If he will change is stance on gun ownership I will campaign for him. If he will change his position on Partial Birth Abortion and gun ownership I will send money to his campaign and campaign for him.
This is a new article by a respected writer for Nat Review -- makes for a perfectly reasonable post.
No need to call in the Aw Jeeez dude.
"On President Bill Clinton: Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, Giuliani told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." -Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett."
If Giuliani had a "D" next to himself instead of that "R", I bet you'd oppose him.
I swear sometimes I think the 2008 election could be between democrat Hillary Clinton and party-switcher republican Edward Kennedy and some people here would be saying "we need to vote for Kennedy to stop Hillary!"
Giuliani will be a great president. I'm looking forward to it.
How insulting. Giuliani makes Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Tom Coburn. Why would the GOP nominate a man for President who is to the left of the national Democratic Party?
I won't vote for either of the two. We don't need another Bob Dole election.
Really, though, I think they share a good deal. Both are uber-left on social issues, center-right on fiscal issues and pretty much right on things like national defense and crime.
I would take McCain over Rudy and I find it virtually impossible to vote for McCain.
The probable nominee for each of both major parties is very likely somebody that nobody is talking about now. As each of these prospective rivals is pushed forward by the mess media and the presstitute corps, almost as quickly a firestorm flashes up around each of them. It is as if there was a terrible haste to tarnish any potential candidate.
Some of it is bogus, and some of it is done to conceal even larger blemishes from being examined. Maybe there is no Ronald Reagan to be had for nomination this time. Some governor, somewhere, is still in grooming, but now is too soon. Anyone whose entire political experience has been as a legislator, may almost certainly be dismissed out of hand, as they bring far too narrow a perspective to be effective executives. Former military officers of high rank, are almost as limited as former legislators, unless they have had experience in running some industrial empire, and can show different dimensions of themselves.
I would nominate myself, but that would tend to be just a little egocentric, and I do not wear that persona well. But I do know for sure, I am WAY smarter than some 95% of those who have already offered up their services to the cause.
But America does not want, or even need, smart people to run it. What we need, is determined people. The next 20 years or so is going to be just one tough old toboggan ride.
Part of it over sand and rocks.
With the MSM picks for the GOP POTUS, there will be plenty of people screaming "If we don't elect a democrat with an R by their name, we will get a democrat with a D by their name.
This sure worked well the last election. /S
Are you saying it's not possible to oppose someone and their political positions on various issues without hating them?
If you are, that's pretty silly.
More common than 'Enzyte Bob' on my TV and just as likely to sell me anything I want or need.
McCain's biggest problem is that his supporters are best described as "not Republicans", i.e., not RINO's, but people who are not registered as Republicans, i.e., independents and Democrats. His next biggest is the votes and stands he has taken as a Senator in the past five years - IMO those weigh more against McCain than anything Giuliani has said or done with the possible exception of Rudi being for gun control, and on that one I think Rudi will decide that "Paris is worth a mass" as Henry of Navarre, aka Henri IV, did.
I guess I'm just tired of the endless Rudy bashing one sees on these threads. It's as if 9-11 never happened. The social conservatives, the more rabid hundred-percenters at any rate, sound like they're in denial over who can win in 2008.
I will not vote or support McCain or Rudy for President. I admit that Rudy would represent NY if he were elected Senate. McCain is much to erratic and angry for me to support him in any circumstances.
If they want to advertise here, seems like they ought to buy the space. I mean, if I started telling everyone here about my kitchen and bath cabinet and countertop business here in Nashville, I'm sure they'd yank it in a hurry.
No denial at all. Rudy can't win. Maybe that sounds too negative, so let me make it more positive: Rudy will lose.
He'll never get my vote. If it comes down to him and Hillary--I could care less who wins.
A good lesson in this fine article by Brookhiser.
Rudy is a good strong candidate who can take out Hillary.
We already know how strong he is on the WOT, supporting the Military and fighting Islamo-fascists. He has told us what kind of SCOTUS judges he would pick : in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, like Roberts and Alito.
These are the foremost issues of our time. Waiting around for the perfect candidate with whom you agree on everything means the election of another Clinton, this one far worse than her HINO.
Why did you us the DU word haters? Seems to me they were just saying why they wouldn't vote for him. Don't you think they have a right to their opinion??
RUDY ON TERRORISM as far back as Munich:
Giuliani had spoken of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in his first mayoral inaugural address, in a paean to Gotham spunk (New Yorkers of the 1990s have the same ingenuity, sensitivity, talent, and courage that our ancestors had in building our great city). The methods he had used to fight the mob turned out to be essential in cracking the Jersey City terror cell that planned the 1993 bombing, and other attacks. Andy McCarthy, lead prosecutor of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheik, says that the Justice Department used Giulianis RICO paradigm, not focusing on foot soldiers but peeling back the case to big organizations in time and space. Most important was Giulianis moral clarity. Siegels wonk coexists with a man of passion. Giuliani saw this issue early on as very black and white, says McCarthy. Part of what people who dont like Rudy dont like about him is how headstrong he is. In 1995 Giuliani ejected Yasser Arafat from a Lincoln Center concert honoring the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Maybe we should wake people up to the way this terrorist is being romanticized. After 9/11 he returned $10 million from a Saudi prince who had suggested that our Palestinian policy had helped cause the attack. In his speeches Giuliani dates the run-up to 9/11 from the 1985 murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian hijackers.
A Republican Guiliani President would not do a damn thing about abortion or gun control. He's not that stupid.
Kiss President Hillary hello and kiss your country and your freedoms as you know it goodbye.
Are you insane? Have you been asleep...PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES COULD NOT EVEN WIN RE-ELECTION THIS TIME AROUND. Wake up my friends, it's a new day and if you care about your Country, you'll realize that before it's too late. And it's not too late if you don't keep waiting for someone who agrees 100% with everything you agree with. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
I can overlook one, or maybe even TWO major issues,,,,
but NOT FIVE (abortion, guns, gay, amnesty and big government) major issues.
No thanks. If the the election is between Rudy and Hillary--I could care less.
If that's the case, then I should keep stocking up on ammo because it's already too late.
Lookee here..it's Fridat night happy hour..
I don't know any 'hundred percenters' as liberal Alan Simpson calls them. I know some conservatives who have a number of bedrock issues, but none of them demand a politician agree with them 100% on all issues, only the bedrock issues.
If you really want to persuade, drop the name-calling. First you accused people of being 'Rudy haters'. Then, after being called on that, you resorted to more derogatory name-calling ('hundred percenters').
If you only want to give yourself some superficial superiority satisfaction, then by all means, keep up the name calling. But if you want to persuade, you'd be better served by dropping it.
Just a word to the wise.
"Giuliani will be a great president. I'm looking forward to it".
If Rudy will fight the freaking War on Terror and work on Federal Spending, I'll forgive an awful lot. I despise much of what he seems to stand for, but we're not likely to get a perfect, or even really good candidate.
Maybe it is...but I'd rather live in reality, than dream about the glory days.
"Are you insane? Have you been asleep...PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES COULD NOT EVEN WIN RE-ELECTION THIS TIME AROUND. Wake up my friends, it's a new day and if you care about your Country, you'll realize that before it's too late. And it's not too late if you don't keep waiting for someone who agrees 100% with everything you agree with. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN".
Will you discount Elkay sinks?
R is for Rino these days it seems.
Barry Goldwater charged into battle on a wing and a prayer....Ronaldus maximus picked up the sword......
If Ronald Reagan could read these posts, he would wonder where our American sense of optimism had gone.
Time to gird our loins. H*ll, we have 2 years to find a candidate...a hairy, manly man with optimism and yes, courage.
Listen up...Bush hasn't been fiscally conservative has he? He's spent like a drunken sailor, hasn't he? But look who we have on the Supreme Court. If you can't see that there's always a tradeoff, than you're living in a different world than the rest of us. If you think a Rodham Presidency would be the same thing as a Guiliani presidency you're in desperate need of mental help.