Skip to comments.The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani
Posted on 12/20/2006 8:29:40 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention.
That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated.
However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake.
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."
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
Let one more name be tossed into the hopper. General John Abizaid, who has announced his retirement from active duty and is leaving his post as commander of the US forces in Iraq. Abizaid was born in the United States to a Christian Lebanese-American family, is fluent in Arabic, and is the most senior military officer of direct Arab descent. The name Abizaid means father of Zaid in Arabic. He was raised mostly by his widowed father. He studied Arabic in Jordan, where he received special forces training. He started a program to put Arabic speakers on a fast track for promotions. A graduate of West Point, he is vastly more qualified in military affairs than that great white knight raised by the Democrats during the previous Presidential election cycle, Wesley Clark. And apparently, military competence is a widely desired trait in our civilian leadership. Or it should be.
If it comes to voting for Rudy or Mrs. Clinton, vote for Rudy because a)he is at least nominally a Republican, and b)he looks much better in a dress. And he has been photographed in a dress, unlike Mrs. Clinton.
There is that picture of her relieving herself in the men's restroom...
I can't vote for any antigun candidate. At least the GOP would fight Hillary.
Here is a Julie-Annie speech on Gun control. It was made to the Citizens Crime Commission
Do you see anything wrong with his quotes?
Just as unimpeded interstate travel is Constitutionally guaranteed, but we reserve the right to regulate driving automobiles, so too must we sensibly regulate gun purchases to preserve the safety of all Americans.
However, guns kill many more people than automobiles do, even though there are many more cars than guns, and cars are used much more often than guns.
Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns. If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
He's a liberal. Case closed.
This is how you slouch towards Gomorrah.
Giuliani: Pro-growth tax-cutter
Rudy Giuliani has proven, both during his tenure as mayor of New York and through his subsequent rhetoric, that he is a pro-growth Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Newt Gingrich. As mayor, Giuliani cut city taxes by more than eight billion dollars, reducing the tax burden on New Yorkers by 22%. Giuliani’s low-tax views remain intact. As Race42008 correspondent Kavon noted yesterday, Rudy’s recent visit to Minnesota included an emphasis on achieving economic growth via low taxes and less regulation on the economy. Rockefeller he ain’t; Rudy’s a Reagan Republican.
Rudy: Gingrich-style government reformer
Conservatives who liked Newt’s welfare reform and GWB’s attempt at entitlement reform have an ally in Rudy. As mayor, Giuliani reformed welfare in New York with the same tenacity as the class of ‘94 in Congress. Once again, this ain’t Christie Whitman we’re dealing with; Rudy’s a Newt Republican who also made a serious attempt to take on the teachers’ unions in NYC and fund school choice via charter schools. A President Giuliani means a conservative reformer who will fight for market-based revisions to our age-old bureaucratic messes in Washington.
Rudy Giuliani: Fiscal conservative
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani cut the New York City government payroll by 19%, eliminating unnecessary civil servants from the public dole. Can anyone remember the last time a Republican president was able to send lazy federal workers packing? Inheriting a multi-billion dollar deficit, Rudy turned it into a surplus, delivering eight consecutive balanced budgets. Folks, this ain’t Linc Chafee we’re talking about here.
Giuliani: Tough enough to take on the bad guys
Unlike the Democrats, who are too nuanced to acknowledge that the “bad guys” in life even exist, Rudy Giuliani knows how to identify a threat to safety and security and pound that threat into submission. Giuliani’s record on crime in NYC is well-documented; if Rudy is able to do to the terrorists what he did to the crime lords of the Big Apple, Americans will once again be able to feel secure in an uncertain world. Sure, every Republican will talk tough on terror, but only Rudy’s proven he actually knows how to eliminate a threat terrorizing a population.
Rudy will secure our borders
An essential component of national security includes securing America’s borders. Unfortunately, President Bush has been unwilling to take the necessary steps to accomplish that task. While John McCain and Mitt Romney discuss “comprehensive” solutions, Rudy is ready to do what it takes to prevent individuals from illegally entering the United States. During his recent visit to Minnesota, Rudy laid out his immigration plan, which begins with sealing the borders and also involves ensuring that immigrants learn English so that they can be better assimilated into American culture. As such, Rudy is to the right of President Bush on this issue.
Giuliani would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary
Social conservatives who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and who fear the imposition of same-sex marriage on unwilling populations by judicial fiat have a friend in Giuliani. Rudy has now explicitly voiced support for the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench. His recent trip to Minnesota included an admission that he would appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. During this same trip, Rudy also confirmed that he believes legislatures, and not judges, should set policy. A Giuliani presidency would now almost certainly fail to yield judicial rulings from the federal bench in favor of gay marriage, and would be at least as likely as any other Republican presidency to see abortion returned to the political process, where it belongs.
Rudy believes that marriage is between a man and a woman
Mayor Giuliani has made clear his belief in traditional marriage only; that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, and in no other form. Says Rudy:
“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case,…”
Some social conservatives are uncomfortable that Rudy doesn’t support amending the Constitution to make sure this definition of marriage stands. But Rudy has made clear that he’ll do whatever it takes to maintain the traditional definition of marriage; he just thinks the constitutional amendment is the wrong strategy right now. I agree. As long as judges like Roberts and Alito are on the bench — the type that Rudy would appoint as president — a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
Giuliani understands the party he’s leading
Unlike McCain, who basically told southern, religious conservatives where they could go back in 2000, Rudy understands that he’s campaigning to lead the party of the sunbelt — a party that is more pro-life and pro-gun than his New York constituents. As such, the mayor has given no indication that he will turn his presidency into some sort of pro-abortion, pro-gun control crusade, and every indication that he will defer to his base on those issues. We’ve yet to get definitive statements from Rudy regarding abortion or the Second Amendment in the last few years. While Rudy opponents trot out statements from the 1990s or even the 1980s on those issues, let’s wait and see where Rudy stands in 2006 before passing any judgment. Mayor Giuliani might just surprise pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives with his interpretation of how the president, and not the mayor of the most liberal city in the country, should handle these hot-button cultural issues. At the very least, Giuliani appears prepared to do no harm to conservatives on these issues while promising to advance their causes via the appointment of conservative judges.
Rudy Giuliani is absolutely electable
Despite what John Hawkins says, Rudy is probably the most electable Republican in the country right now. In fact, it would be very, very difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which Rudy would lose to any Democrat, and the mayor would easily trounce the Gore/Kerry sort of Democrat that the Left insists on nominating time after time. If Hillary or Gore is the nominee in 2008, Rudy would win the electoral college in a walk. Here’s why.
First, the impact of an ethnic Catholic leading a presidential ticket must not be understated. The entire industrial north is a region filled with Catholics of eastern and southern European descent. This includes states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, which went for John Kerry by only two and three percentage points in 2004, respectively. Identity politics alone would likely garner Giuliani a couple of extra percentage points across the Rust Belt, just as President Bush likely benefited from his southern evangelical status in states filled with southern evangelicals.
Secondly, Rudy’s fiscally-conservative profile is very similar to the Republican executives elected by the voters of states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. By reminding upper-midwestern voters of their favorite governors, like Tommy Thompson, John Engler, and Tom Ridge, Rudy would likely garner another few points out of the Rust Belt.
So let’s say that Rudy’s ethnic Catholic, working class background, combined with his Rust Belt-style positions on the issues, is able to increase the GOP presidential ticket’s vote share by five percent from 2004 across the Rust Belt, which includes the states bordered by Minnesota and Iowa in the west and New Jersey in the east. The result of this sort of a swing would send the following states into the “red” column: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. That’s another 58 electoral votes for the GOP ticket.
Now, John Hawkins will argue that’s all for naught, as Rudy, who is unable to pound the podium regarding life issues with the same tenacity as President Bush, will likely lose a few points across the South. Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s assume that Rudy’s presidential ticket loses five points from Bush’s 2004 totals in every single southern state simply because he’s a) not an evangelical, b) he can’t call himself pro-life, and c) he’s not for amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. I think assuming a five point loss in every southern state is more than generous to John’s argument in this case, and I suspect Hawkins would agree. Now, let’s see how many southern states Rudy loses with that five point loss across the South…
In fact, the only state that would be teetering on the edge with a five point reduction in the South from Bush’s 2004 numbers would be Florida, a state filled with ex-New-Yorkers who would almost certainly make up for any sort of Bush-Giuliani gap in the region. The fact of the matter is simply that the GOP has succeeded in Republicanizing the South to the extent that most southern states are simply no longer in danger of turning “blue” during a presidential election. Mark Warner might be able to win a few of them against Arlen Specter, but as has been demonstrated above, Rudy’s no Arlen Specter. And Hillary Clinton is no Mark Warner.
Further, Hawkins’ argument that Rudy couldn’t survive without the support of the GOP base is very true. As such, it’s a good thing that Rudy has been able to attain the support of that very base. Rudy generally garners between 85% and 90% of Republicans in a hypothetical matchup against a standard blue-state Democrat like Hillary Clinton. These numbers are just ever-so-slightly shy of Bush’s 90-plus percent GOP support against Kerry in 2004. And while it’s true that Rudy’s support among independents and Democrats will fluctuate, it’s probably also true that Rudy will at least win independents in the general election, which the president couldn’t do two years ago. Given those considerations, it’s hard to see how Rudy can be viewed as anything other than supremely electable.
Of the current GOP 2008 field, Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who brings to the table the charisma and leadership of a Reagan, the transformative conservative policies of a Gingrich, and the seriousness regarding the GWOT of a Bush. Giuliani is perfectly suited to lead today’s sunbelt center-right GOP due to his belief in low taxes, fiscal responsibility, market-based government reform, traditional marriage, conservative judges, securing the borders, and, last but certainly not least, the destruction of the terrorist threat against America. Only Rudy can package all of this conservatism in a manner that appeals to large numbers of swing voters while still maintaining solid levels of support among the Republican base. Rudy Giuliani would almost certainly sweep the electoral college against any Democrat by holding all of the red states, most of which are now so heavily Republican that only a very conservative Democrat has a chance of winning them, while flipping the electoral-rich Rust Belt that has at least as much of a cultural connection with Giuliani as the South did with President Bush. Tough, conservative, and electable, conservatives could do a lot worse than Rudy Giuliani.
Call me a butt, but abortion shouldn't be such a big issue. If a mother has complications and aborting the fetus is the only to save the mother or the womb, what will happen when the doctors say "I'm sorry ma'am, but it's against the law to abort the child." What would the couple say when the doctor tells them that?
I fully understand that at a certain point, the heartbeat starts, but everybody is making such a big nothing out of this issue. Keep the religious beliefs out of the government.
Flaming is welcome
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter his personal views when it comes to picking justices. Maybe he still believes in strict constructionism.
If the court would stick to constitutional issues, we wouldn't worry about it's "social" makeup, because that would be the job for the legislature, not the court.
And we could pick a national leader based on their leadership skills, NOT based on their personal religious beliefs.
I'm not supporting Rudy, or opposing him, I'm just saying that the vision of the Founding Fathers was a good one that has been corrupted by the choice of activist judges who have thrown everything askew.
If I wasn't at work right now, I would've been cursing up a huge storm after reading what that dingbat said. Well-regulated militia means a well-organized militia. How stupid can one be?
Amen to that.
The time to fight against Rudy is now and if that fight is lost, we then fight against Hillary.
"This is how you slouch towards Gomorrah."
Everybody looks at the narrow domestic picture, which the President doesn't control anyway, and has blinders when it comes to the statesman persona, which is far more important.
Makes my hair hurt!
If Rudy were the GOP nominee, most conservatives I know would start casting about for a 3rd party candidate. Myself included.
Ah, the battle between the fiscal and social conservatives.
If we can just guarantee that the federal government will STAY OUT of social policy altogether, then the personal vies of the president on social issues becomes less important.
However, it is hard to support a person who is pro-abortion, simply because most pro-abortion people have a fundamental misunderstanding of life and it's value, and that misunderstanding raises doubts as to their thought process, decision-making ability, and general character.
Rudy Giuliani: A More Charismatic Version Of Arlen Specter
Rudy Giuliani may have many fine qualities, but he is not a conservative, nor has he always been a loyal Republican.
For example, back in the mid-nineties, when he was actually running New York City, Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst:
"The National Journals rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."
As per his converstation with a report in Wilkes Barre while campaigning for Santorum: "WILKES-BARRE - Secure the borders, said Rudy Giuliani when asked about the nations illegal immigration problems in Wilkes-Barre Sunday night.
While calling for strong measures to secure the borders, the highly acclaimed former mayor of New York City said it is also important that a solution be reached that would prevent illegals presently in the country from going underground and becoming a serious threat to the welfare of the United States. He does not oppose people entering the county legally.
Why not wait and hear it from Rudy's mouth instead of some pundit?
None of these issues are national issues, they are all state's rights issues.
That is how we got eight years of Bill Clinton, and it is a sure way to give us four to eight of Hillary.
BINGO!!! No presidential candidate is going to touch them.
[Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group."
Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, he explained: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." -- Rudy - An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459
"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, 'Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." -- Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133
"[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor.
In his heart, he's a Democrat.
He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo.
But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out.
Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." -- Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S., Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994
Not in your wildest dreams, this didn't work in the last election, and it will fail miserably in the next.
"Any one but Hillary" is not a platform.
Abortion is the single most important issue for me, with all that it entails--the inalienable right to life, strict construction of the constitution, an end to judicial tyranny and of rule by ideological fiat.
If we can't protect the lives of the innocent, if we declare a constitutional right to murder, then our country has been so bent that we don't deserve to survive. For that reason, I think we need to get those things straightened out before we can even venture to continue the war against terror. The judges who dictate abortion and gay marriage are the same as the judges who dictate to our president that he cannot secure the safety of our country by spying on our enemies, not even if congress approves of it.
Nevertheless, if Rudy becomes the front runner, I will give him every consideration. As I have said on other threads, he talked a very pro-abortion line when he ran for office in New York, but as far as I am aware he never DID anything to try to further the number of abortions, unlike Pataki and Bloomberg.
Further, I think he is an honest man. If he pledges not to oppose the pro-life position of the party, I will believe him. So, we need to hear what he has to say. Keep in mind that he may not come out strongly pro-life, because he does not want to offend some of the swing voters, so we will need to consider the matter very closely and carefully as the campaigns move forward.
There's no doubt about McCain. He is a nut case, totally incapable of running the country. And there's no doubt about Hillary. She is strongly pro-abortion, and she would take immediate action. Her husband passed several of his "stroke of the pen, law of the land" abominations the very first day he was in the presidency--one of them attempting to legitimate gays in the military, another reversing Reagan's Mexico City policy and authorizing billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent around the world furthering the cause of abortion, including forced abortions in China and abortions imposed by internation aid groups on unwilling smaller countries.
Hillary would do the same. She just aches to use taxpayer dollars to spread the Culture of Death: abortion, perversion, euthanasia, and surrender to Islam would be among the consequences if she is elected. She wouldn't just talk, she would act.
Hunter has zero chance of getting the nomination, let alone of beating Hillary.
This is most likely true and it is the most likely outcome of nominating Rudy. (IMO)
I think McKook is the only potential third party candidate who could take enough votes away from Rudy to give Hillary the election.
On the other hand, if hillary gets into the White House, mothers will soon be able to tell their teen-age daughters, "If you don't make your bed this instant, I'll have you gang-raped by your cousins!"
Of course. I'm not only against abortion, I'm against murder, robbery, oath breaking, treason, and theft of the taxpayers' money.
But it depends what you mean by balance. First things first. Without the inalienable right to life, it doesn't mean much to lower tax rates, especially if you believe in killing off all those future tax payers.
I respect your disdain, but I would urge you to consider the Supreme Court. It is the most powerful of political institutions at this time, a time of war. Think about all the big issues of the day and imagine that court filled with liberals. That is what your future will be if the closet communists gain the Presidency.
One of the most ardent pro-lifers I know is an avowed atheist who bases his entire pro-life position on a non-sectarian, humanitarian philosophy.
Ironically, I suspect he's eventually going to become religious in the end as a result of this atheism. The diabolical nature of abortion is such that it has gradually convinced him of the existence of Satan -- which almost by definition will require him to acknowlege the existence of God.
I don't expect it to be a third party. I expect a lot of people will stay home so they don't have to offend their dignity by choosing one of those two.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy... You really ought to hire some people to research this stuff for you before you say such silly and thoroughly false things.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy... You really ought to hire some people to research this stuff for you before you say such silly and thoroughly false things.
If you lived in NYC during the Dinkins administration - THAT WAS THE CASE! More people were dying from gun shot wounds than automobiles. I believe that is what Rudy is talking about. People could not walk the streets without fear of being shot at or mugged during the Dinkins administration. Don't compare the rest of the country with NYC during that time. NYC was a crime ridden hell hole and you were afraid to walk at night.
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.