Skip to comments.Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative
Posted on 02/28/2007 9:56:17 AM PST by Peach
Not since Teddy Roosevelt took on Tammany Hall a century ago has a New York politician closely linked to urban reform looked like presidential timber. But today exNew York mayor Rudy Giuliani sits at or near the top of virtually every poll of potential 2008 presidential candidates. Already, Giulianis popularity has set off a stop Rudy movement among cultural conservatives, who object to his three marriages and his support for abortion rights, gay unions, and curbs on gun ownership. Some social conservatives even dismiss his achievement in reviving New York before 9/11.
An August story on the website Right Wing News, for instance, claims that Giuliani governed Gotham from left of center. Similarly, conservatives have been feeding the press a misleading collection of quotations by and about Giuliani, on tax policy and school choice issues, assembled to make him look like a liberal.
But in a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservatives priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering.
The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sectors way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives.
Hillary or Rudy? Which is the lesser of two evils?
Yes, I am the King of Spain.
What an incredibly creative and unique title for a post!!!/sarcasm
Republicans across the spectrum of fiscal or social conservatives and across the Bible Belt and flyover country love him.
But I'm sure they're all RINOs which stands for Rudy is Number One. And it's just killing ya'll. Thanks for moving the party so far to the right that even a fairly representative number of conservatives are turned off.
Again, this is my own opinion on the matter and each are free to their own...but I reckon I must stand before my Maker one day, and before God, I could never violate the sacred trust of my free vote for someone who support such positions so diametrically opposed to the very moral basis and foundation for our liberties.
you make an important observative there.
polls show that the Generation Y demographic runs 58/42 Dem. and if you add to that, the number of single young women who are going to turnout to vote to elect the first woman president, that demographic is going to be very scary for the republicans in 2008. we need a candidate who can push back in that demographic.
Needlessly excoriated? So you think we should just accept this liberal, socialist, communist leaning so called conservative and not say a word, not try to educate the idiots who actually believe this RINO traitor to be a conservative? The man whose policies on illegal immigration were a big contributor to 9/11? The man who used the diaster he helped create to paint himself as a hero? That guy? We needlessley excoriate that man?
The way you get out the word on candidates is to let people know the facts about them, if that is needlessly excoriating them, then so be it.
Why? If you have a rah!rah! Rudy forum and a rah! rah! ah....say Duncan Hunter or Newt forum, it's a feel good think but not good for debate. I would rather see things rough and rowdy , if information and education happening. JMO
Rudy is a fiscal and law and order conservative.
And those of us who like him are happy to stand in the company of people like Newt Gingrich, Michael Reagan, Rep. Sessions, Sen. Brownback, Ted Olson, etc.
They are staunch conservatives and they like, support and/or endorse Rudy.
Oh, man! I needed a laugh today! That article sure did the trick.
ROFLMAO!!!! Cute joke, but a lie!
how do you feel about Reagan? he appointed 2 (of his 3) members to the SCOTUS who were pro-Roe.
...one issue losers...?
1. Abortion on demand
2. Homosexual agenda
3. Man-made global warming
4. Gun control
5. Dramatically increased government spending
I count five liberal issues...
Supporting a gay group with ties to anti-war communists fits your model?
That's fine. And there are people who stand with you.
Lots of common sense conservatives, however, are more interested in fiscal conservatives and law and order conservatives, and Rudy fits those bills beautifully.
Since we're not going to find anyone who fits the entire package, ever, then I'm going with national security. The federal goverment hasn't done anything much about abortion anyway and I've seen states like mine have much more success in one year and one piece of legislation in stopping the advance of abortion than the federal government has had since 1980.
Kudos for Mark Levin for going against the grain on this one and exposing these idiotic musings about how "conservative" Rudy Giuliani is.
Yes, but in the past Republicans were welcomed, that is no longer the sentiment. IMHO
Hey, I totally agree with your tag. No way in heck I'd vote for the Hillary clone, and I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to Romney, but Hunter? Heck yes!
if you believed all the hype on FR about Rudy, you'd have to swallow that he was going to have the ATF kick in every door in the US, take all the guns out, give out coupons to the women for free abortions, and dress all the men in the house in evening gowns.
and you added another one - Rudy was responsible for the immigration policies that led to 9-11?
Rudy is a Conservative like San Fran Nan is a conservative Catholic. Horse hockey.
Sen. Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Michael Reagan, Ted Olson, Rep. Session and others like, support or endorse Rudy. I'm delighted to stand with them.
And while I don't need them and certainly don't need Mark Levin or for that matter the forum owner to tell me what a person is all about, I'm delighted to be in agreement with the people in the first paragraph.
There have been very few lies told about this man here. The most damning evidence of Rudy's liberalism is his own words and deeds.
I do not believe Reagan intended for that to be the outcome. I look at Reagan through the same prism as I look as Rudy. What did he say, and what did he do. Reagan spoke out against and did what he could to slack and stop abortions at a time when the congress was set in a majroity against him. No one, who lived through Reagan's presidential years, could possibly look at his speeches and recodr and call him pro-abortion. Rudy wears that label with pride. There's ahuge difference there for me.
You either are or you aren't what? You think there's only one kind of conservative?
Clearly people within the Republican leadership disagree with you.
read post 58 and tell me if you agree with that.
Who says anything about "Rah-Rah"? I'm just saying the 4 Rudy posts (mostly positive) per hour might go nicely into one neat avoidable pile,
There was a time when both of those were basically synonymous, but 2007-08 may well be remembered as the point in time when that was no longer the case.
And with all the talk about the "real, true" conservatives" leaving the GOP, one has to wonder what will happen when those very same "real, true" conservatives try to take the party over a cliff without the Republicans.
They just will not accept the fact that we can win without them but they, the "real, true" conservatives cannot possibly win without us.
No need for flaming, plenty of Rudy supporters here, and will be here through this year and next.
He looks like our best bet to me, unless a white knight rides over the hill real soon.
And I sure don't hear any clippety-clopping.
but the machinations of politics, and how you achieve political objectives, is different then the sentiments someone expresses in a speech.
Arlen Specter has done more in the last 4 year (yes, Arlen Specter) to help us get on a path to get rid of Roe, then anyone. I know, people will reply to me "he did it because Frist threatened him". I don't care how it got done, I'm only interested in the outcome that got Roberts and Alito onto the SCOTUS. It was a hell of alot better outcome then seeing OConnor and Kennedy get on the Court.
Anti-war communists are law & order types? Wow, good one kid.
Time for your nap, now, kid. Mommy is calling you.
Nice sentence btw. WTF?
So you do think there is just one kind of conservative? Well, I'm pleased the Republican leadership knows better and fully understands there are those who think fiscal conservatives and law and order conservatives are more important to the country's survival than whether or not we permit gay unions.
Oh, it's very needful. Especially when his drummers are trying to reinvent him as a conservative.
LOL. Now THAT's a recommendation. C'mon. President Bush "self-describes" himself as conservative, as do many liberal voting, conservative talking Senators and Reps. Self-description isn't valid, and, in this case, is a lie.
Giuliani's Record EXPOSED!National Defense: Many people contend that Giuliani is the best Republican candidate for national security? But they fail to explain his national security superiority over the other candidates in light of the FACT that he twisted President Bush's arm to appoint Rudy's mobbed up, high school dropout, corrupt political crony and business partner, Bernard Kerik, to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks and during a time of war. How could someone who demonstrated that he is more interested in political cronyism in the selection of such a critical, national security position - after the 9/11 attacks and during a time of war - be better on national security than the other GOP candidates.
His preparations for possible terrorist attackss are also questionable. Despite getting the reports about comms not working between FDNY and NYPD during the 1993 WTC attack, Giuliani didn't fix the situation and 8 years later found the city unprepared for the 2001 WTC attack. Tell me how that helps his image on national security and war fighting issues. I mean, if a glaring security and safety deficiency, exposed by an attack on us, is found in our national security or our armed forces, will it take President/Commander in Chief Giuliani 8 years to fix it if he even attempts to fix it?
Giuliani agreed to give the New York Stock Exchange a $1.1 Billion dollar handout (which, by the way, is equal to the entire operating budget of the New York Fire Department) but he could never find it in the budget to upgrade the FDNY and NYPD communications systems even after the original WTC attacks demonstrated their deficiencies. How does this demonstrate the way he will act as Commander in Chief when determining priorities for the military and homeland security?
In truth, the whole national security thing with Giuliani is purely myth. Yes, he's a war hawk. Just like almost every other Republican Presidential candidate right now except for Paul and Hagel. But his actual record on issues that directly pertain to how he would operate as President is not going to help him.
Law and Order: His law and order record does not go well beyond clearing the streets of squeegee men, bums, and hookers. Some tout his efforts to go after organized crime, but he lost all credibility on that when it was exposed that he'd appointed a corrupt high school dropout with mob ties to be the Commissioner of the New York Police Department. Bernie Kerik, again. Giuliani went on to strong arm President Bush into appointing Kerik to one of the top law enforcement positions in the country - the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik had to withdraw his name when he was later indicted for his crimes for which he received an even later conviction. He avoided jail, but narrowly.
- Giuliani also continued the 'sanctuary city' policies of enacted by his Democrat predecessors. He welcomed hundreds of thousands of criminals - illegal aliens - into his city and refused to work with the INS on enforcing immigration laws. In fact, so annoyed with the pressure that INS was putting on him to cooperate and uphold law and order, he actually sued the Federal Government to try to be able to just ignore the law and continue coddling hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens. His lawsuit failed, and failed again on appeal, but he flouted the law anyway and continued to coddle the hundreds of thousands of criminals in his city.
Appointments/Nominations to his administration:First, I'll start with two words. Bernie Kerik. We know what a great job Giuliani did at getting Bush to appoint his mobbed up, high school dropout, corrupt business partner Bernie Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security. Giuliani earlier appointed Kerik to head the New York Police Department And we know now how that all worked out. Kerik narrowly avoided jail, but he was convicted anyway.
Giuliani, in a quid pro quo for the New York Liberal Party's endorsement and support, appointed Liberal Party Chairwoman Fran Reiter as Deputy Mayor. He also appointed Russell Harding, the son of Giuliani's close friend Raymond Harding who also chaired the Liberal Party and was one of Giuliani's closest campaign advisers, to be the City Housing Director. Russell Harding had to leave office upon being arrested by federal law enforcement and charged with conspiracy, fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, receiving child pornography, and possesing child pornography. He was using his official credit card to pay for personal items including a car, 'Sopranos' and 'Sex in the City' DVDs, and a helicopter tour of the Grand Canyon. He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and forced to repay $367,000 he embezzled from the New York City.
He also appointed hundreds of judges in New York during his term. You can count on one hand how many were "strict constructionists" and/or conservative.
Yes, Rudy Giuliani has a sterling record when it comes to appointing people to positions in his administration. One can only imagine the types of people he'd appoint to his administration and to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. It would be wise not to give him that opportunity given his record.
Fiscal Conservatism: Rudy is barely a fiscal conservative. He's a big government Republican. Rudy got taxes cut $2.0 billion. But that only offset the $1.8 billion tax increase Mayor Dinkins signed off on a few years earlier. A modest $200 million tax cut. Rudy also froze the 12.5% surcharge on high income earners, but he didn't eliminate the surcharge. Nor did Rudy abolish the city income tax structure. Rudy also left NYCity saddled with a projected, pre-9/11 deficit of $2.0 billion and a $42 billion debt. Second largest behind the federal government. Rudy also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls, helping to increase the membership of two of America's largest liberal oraganizations. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. Rudy also took all those savings from the cuts in welfare costs and applied them to other city welfare progarms. Really no savings whatsoever. The scope of city services wasn't reduced. In addition, Rudy almost doubled the costs of contractual outsourcing from $3.0 billion to $5.8 billion. These are just a few of the things that demonstrate that the myth of Rudy's fiscal conservatism is just that - a myth. He may not be a fiscal liberal like he is on most of his other positions. But he's no fiscal conservative.
And just what "one issue" are you referring to?
Nonsense! Rudy may have showed some fiscal restraint while Mayor of the Big Apple, but that was by the liberal standards of NYCity! Rudy was NO fiscal conservative. This Rudy-Sycophant Steve Malanga works for the Manhattan Institute. Edmund J. McMahon has also done work for the Manhattan Institute and his analysis of Rudy`s final closing record as Mayor of NYCity includes the good, the bad and the ugly. Read on .......
The Real Rudy Record
"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."
TAXES: Giuliani did cut the marginal city income tax rates, reducing taxes by some $2.0-billion from 1996-2001, but those cuts only offset the $1.8-billion increase in city income tax rates put in place by Mayor Dinkins a few years earlier. In the end, income taxes were actually cut by a modest $200-million. Freezing the 12.5% surcharge on high wage earners was good, but Giuliani didn't attempt to abolish that surcharge. Nor did Giuliani attempt to make serious permanent changes to the city income tax code. The primary reason Rudy and the City Council agreed to cut taxes, was to make NYCity more appealing to new businesses thinking about locating/relocating to the Big Apple. A smart move, however, when Rudy left office he left NYCity straddled with some of the highest income taxes, property taxes and utility rates in the entire nation.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING: From 1997 to 2001, spending under Giuliani went up 32%. More then double the rate of inflation. Rudy left NYCity with a projected, pre-9/11 deficit of $2.0 billion and an increased debt total of $42-billion. Second largest debt after the federal government. Giuliani also added 15,000 new teachers to the city employment rolls. Increasing the membership of two major liberal organizations, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
"The scope of government was not reduced at all. The mayor abandoned his most visible initiative in this spherethe proposed sale of the city hospital systemafter a struggle with the unions and defeats in the courts. He did cut costs in social services; even before the new federal welfare reforms took effect in 1997, the city had begun to significantly reduce caseloads. But money saved on social services has only helped to subsidize big increases in other categories. Today the array of social services sponsored and partially funded by the cityfrom day care to virtually guaranteed housingis as wide as ever.
"In the final analysis, Mayor Giuliani sought to make the city deliver services more efficientlynot to make the city deliver fewer services. Gains in efficiency were offset, however, by a spike in the costs of outsourced contracts (see point 2 below). Thus, in two areas where inroads might have been made, the city instead failed to reduce spending."
"1. Personnel Increases. In 199596, the city entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with its public-employee unions. In addition to granting pay increases that ended up roughly equaling inflation, the city promised not to lay off any workers for the life of the contracts. These agreements were expected to add $2.2 billion to the budget by fiscal 2001. But that estimate didnt reckon with renewed growth in the number of city employees. After dipping in Giulianis first two years, the full-time headcount rose from 235,069, in June 1996 to over 253,000 by November 2000. Thanks largely to this growth in the workforce, the total increase in personnel service costs since 1995 has been $4 billion.
2. "Outsourced Services. The failure to shrink the scope of city government made it all the more imperative that Mayor Giuliani vastly increase its efficiency. In the attempt to increase productivity, the mayor farmed out some city services to private contractors. But as the number of outsourced contracts doubled under Giuliani, contractual expenses also nearly doubledfrom $3 billion to $5.8 billion. While it may be argued that the city saved money by outsourcing these services, the net savings turned out to be marginal at best. In practice, outsourcing proved to be more of a bargaining chip in negotiations with unions than a serious means of pruning expenses."
Hard evidence that Rudy Giuliani was NO fiscal conservative. Another run-of-the-mill NYCity liberal.
I believe we can have both and will wait and see through the primaries what that process produces.
Either way, as I stated, I will not vote for any politcal candidate of any stripe who gets those issues wrong...they go to the heart of the moral foundation of our liberites and if we ignore and lose that, then ultimately we will lose our liberties and way of life as we know it.
Please do not take this wrong, but therer have been very powerful and very popular law and order and foreign policy candidates around trhe world in the last 100 years who had nothing to do with ultimate freedom and liberty and what we consider to be our traditional way of life. IMHO, we would be very neglect in our own responsibilities if we did not count that possibility...that lesson of history into our own choice.
It is my position that without the strong moral foundation and strong positions on those critical moral issues, those other qualities can too easily be turned to very bad things.
Again, just my opinion.
I don't know if you've heard, but Rudy supporters were treated by the powers that be around here to being called treasonous liberals.
A LOT of folks took issue with the treason word being throw about because we happen to support a Republican that some people don't like.
Since Rudy's such a Conservative, will you please give me a quick summary of his track record on gun control?