Rudy Giuliani: Lifelong Liberal

The Politico ^ | 4/16/07 | George J. Marlin

[Ol' Sparky]

Rudy Giuliani: Lifelong Liberal

By: George J. Marlin

April 16, 2007 06:33 PM EST

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has been barnstorming the nation, claiming the Ronald Reagan mantle. Recent opinion polls suggest his campaign is striking a chord with the GOP's rank and file but indicate most Republicans don't really know where Mr. Giuliani stands on key issues.

Those who do know are glossing over some very striking philosophical flaws -- at least from a truly conservative perspective. Rudy not only supports abortion but also has advocated for partial-birth abortion and government funding of abortion. He favors gun control, gay rights, domestic partnerships and bias-crime laws. And that's just a short list.

As a conservative activist who has observed Giuliani for many years (and who ran against him in the 1993 mayoral election), I can say categorically that he is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. In my judgment, his record leaves no doubt that he's a lifelong liberal.

In college, Rudy attacked senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, as an "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man," and he urged Republicans to "find men who will adequately address themselves to the problems of discrimination, of poverty, of education, of public housing and the many more problems that Sen. Goldwater and company throw aside in the name of small laissez-faire government."

Former New York governor Mario Cuomo, a liberal icon, put it this way: "(Giuliani's) basically very pragmatic. And he's progressive. He is not a Neanderthal, a primitive conservative. But look, he's a clever human being. He can shave and draw fine distinctions when he needs to."

Giuliani's first wife, Regina, agreed. She told Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett that when she and Rudy separated in 1980, she "still considered him to be a liberal Democrat." She also observed that "(Rudy) generally won't do things unless he believes them, ... but he's not a saint, and he will do things that serve his interests."

Rudy first switched from Democrat to Independent, and then to Republican, not because he embraced the tenets of conservatism but in order to move up the U.S. Justice Department ladder.

"He only became a Republican after he began to get all these (Justice Department) jobs," Rudy's mother, Helen Giuliani, told Barrett. "He's definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn't. He still feels very sorry for the poor."

As a candidate for mayor of New York, Giuliani distanced himself from Ronald Reagan and the GOP. During his first mayoral bid, in 1989, The New York Times pointed out that he "noted frequently that he was supported by the liberal wing of the Republican Party and maintained that he never embraced Mr. Reagan's broad conservative agenda." And when conservatives attacked him during that 1993 mayoral campaign, Giuliani said, "Their fear of me is that I'm going to be a beachhead for the establishment of a more progressive form of Republicanism."

On another occasion he told a television host, "I do not look to see what the catechism of conservatism says about how to solve a problem."

And we mustn't forget that when Giuliani endorsed governor Cuomo for reelection to a fourth term in 1994, he did so, he said, because Republican George Pataki had "a very right-wing voting record" and because Pataki proposed an "irresponsible" 25 percent state income tax cut.

Giuliani also seriously considered endorsing Bill Clinton in 1996 and instead backed Republican nominee Bob Dole with very little fanfare.

"Most of Clinton's policies," he said at the time, "are very similar to mine."

Some Republicans and conservatives are now claiming that Rudy has changed and really become more conservative, and they cite as an example his abandonment of his former vehement opposition to school vouchers. But when Rudy Crew, former New York City Public Schools chancellor, asked Giuliani about this policy shift, the mayor said, "Don't worry about it. It's just a political thing, a campaign thing. I'm not going to do anything. Don't take it seriously." This particular rightward shift was simply a ploy to enhance Giuliani's 2000 U.S. Senate candidacy.

Contrary to what we've been hearing and reading, Rudy Giuliani is today what he has always been: a liberal. Conservatives should take stories of his Damascus Road-like conversion with a grain of salt. Rudy, like Hillary, is campaigning for the presidency in order to implement lifelong leftist beliefs.

George J. Marlin's latest book is "Squandered Opportunities: New York's Pataki Years" (St. Augustine's Press, 2006). In 1993, he was the Conservative Party candidate for mayor of New York City.

[Gracey]

Shows your stupidity if you don’t see a difference or it’s just that you don’t want to see a difference. It’s HUGE. However, I wish we had a candidate that was a little more to my liking, but I don’t see one YET that is liked by Republicans. I’m for the one who is supported by the most Republicans. I vote R in the General election.... even if it’s McCain. Sorry, I don’t allow Marxist/Socialists to get elected. They put our movement even further back, so there is NO recovery ever. How soon you forget 8 years of Clintonista, and Billy boy is bearable. Hitlary is Satan personified.

[Gracey]

Our differences is that I’ll vote for Duncan Hunter, Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Bush again, Fred Thompson, even Chuck Nagel, if he is the R candidate AGAINST HITLARY.

Can you see the difference between us. Sure I know Rudy is not perfect, and I surely have disagreements with him regarding some issues, but he’s GOD compared to Hillary.

You would grow angry at your wife if she didn’t agree with you 100 percent. It’s just a difference in attitude and sanity.

[mkjessup]

That IS funny material, 'Kerik doesn't have a skeleton in his closet, he's got a mass GRAVE!'

And I love these Rudy apologists who have not only greedily slurped up the Purple RudyAid from the big vat, they eagerly sling the RudySpin and other RudyGanda standard responses as issued by the RudyCollectiveBrain.

And the most damning reason why Rudy should not and WILL not be President of the United States is to simply consider what brought him fame and fortune, and that was to just be the Mayor of NYC on 9/11.

Had 9/11 never occurred, Rudy's presidential ambitions would have been nothing but a punchline by Jay Leno, and Saturday Night Live would have utterly savaged him.

But the RudyBots won't let any of that wipe the delusional smiles from their faces, no sirreee! LOL

[mkjessup]

You would grow angry at your wife if she didn’t agree with you 100 percent. It’s just a difference in attitude and sanity.

How about if your wife was in favor of aborting babies because she told you that murdering an unborn child isn't as serious as murdering a child already living? Or what if your wife informed you that the comfortable surplus you thought you had years ago, had been turned into a massive mountain of debt that YOU are now responsible for, because she's leaving?

Or how about a wife who tells you she is loyal to you, believes in the same things you believe in, and when given a choice to demonstrate that, she chooses the ONE person who does NOT believe in what you do, and flaunts her decision in your face?

How about if your wife tells you that most of her beliefs are actually the same as the founder of some local swing club, and says "his positions are pretty much the same as mine"?

I'd be giving serious thought to booting that so-called 'wife' right out the front door if I were you.

[penowa]

"You would grow angry at your wife if she didn’t agree with you 100 percent."

My husband and I are a case of opposites attract in a lot of ways and we agree on very little other than the basics of conservatism.

One thing we agree on is that neither of us votes for a candidate, regardless of party, who has no understanding of the Constitution and even less respect for it. That includes both Hillary and Rudy.

[Gop1040]

“That’s exactly the kind of bizarre, silly mindset that got us a flaming homosexual loony-tune elected governor of New Jersey a few years ago. Yeah, let’s puncture that WASP-dominated hold on the governor’s mansion — and elect a dysfunctional A-hole who picks up anonymous sex partners in highway rest areas.”

Who was talking about the governor of NJ in the first place? Nevertheless, I see you're ruling out an Irish Catholic ever becoming the NJ governor again.

[muleskinner]

Nearly all the red states do not worry about this kind of stuff and we don't need Rudy to clean up our neighborhoods because they are just fine

The question I answered is "Name ONE thing Rudy has done that conservatives would approve". I named two. The point being, Rudy can run a city the size of New York, with a population larger than many states, and get a handle on quality of life issues that have plagued New York since the Dead Rabbits were running around the Five Points.(Gangs of New York ref. fyi)

You must be lucky to live in an area devoid of scoundrelism. Count your blessings.

I'm sure the good folks in Blacksburg, Va. thought they were safe, too.

[Beagle8U]

Without all Rudy’s oddball positions on social issues, there is so many scandals with Kerik and others that worked for him that he would have zero chance in the general election.

[Alberta's Child]

My point is this . . .

What the heck does the conservative movement have to gain with a candidate whose primary strength -- based your own statements here -- is his appeal to voters in some of the most radical, left-wing states in the U.S.

Am I missing something here? Or are you?

[penowa]

"You must be lucky to live in an area devoid of scoundrelism. Count your blessings."

I do. I have lived most of my life in one of the lowest crime areas in the country. The times I have lived elsewhere, I was always hoping to return to where the doors are seldom locked and the keys are left in the ignition in the driveway.

[Alberta's Child]

I don't care if it's the president, the governor, or the local dogcatcher. Why would you ever vote someone based primarily on their race, ethnicity, religion, etc.?

Nevertheless, I see you're ruling out an Irish Catholic ever becoming the NJ governor again.

Did I say that? If anything, it's the exact opposite. There are enough dumb, silly voters in this state that McGreevey could elected right from a rest area on the Turnpike.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm sure the good folks in Blacksburg, Va. thought they were safe, too.

Actually, they kinda were -- and still are. 33 college students from all over the country (if not the world) were killed on a huge local college campus by some A-hole loser from South Korea by way of a northern Virginia suburb of Washington D.C.

I'll bet there's far more agonizing right now over that mass shooting elsewhere in the U.S. than in Blacksburg itself.

[Gop1040]

“Why would you ever vote someone based primarily on their race, ethnicity, religion, etc.?”

Believe it or not, people do it all the time. People like to vote for candidates who most closely resemble themselves. Take religion for instance. Is being a Mormon a plus or minus for Romney? If the Republicans don’t attract and bring into their tent a bigger share of all the groups, forget about ever winning a national election again.

[Alberta's Child]

How big does this tent have to be? Should the Republican Party reach out and try to get the support of Cindy Sheehan and her supporters?

[Rider on the Rain]

Well, Kathy, if a rino is a real republican, I must be affiliated with the wrong party. IMO, the only thing worse than a democrat is a liberal republican.

[writeblock]

“What the heck does the conservative movement have to gain with a candidate whose primary strength — based your own statements here — is his appeal to voters in some of the most radical, left-wing states in the U.S.”

You’re a slow learner—so I’ll repeat till you get it. Then maybe you’ll try to answer the argument instead of ignoring it. It is this: we can’t win the next election if we don’t win some blue and purple states and if you don’t win elections, you give the victory to the enemy. If you do that—how does this support your principles? How does giving the pro-abortion, pro-taxation, anti-military defeatist party a victory help your cause?

On the other hand, Rudy is ahead in many blue and purple states. Together with the mountain states and the South, he’d win in a landslide. That would translate into a GOP Congress, with Boehner and McConnell at the helm instead of Pelosi or Reid. For those of you too dense to realize it, a winner at the head of the ticket, whether he leans to the left or the right, would mean a BIG WIN for conservative values in the long run.

Only the politically obtuse don’t understand this or foolishly ignore it. Politics is a game of the possible. No matter how much you may prefer a Hunter or a Thompson, the name of the game is victory at the polls—or else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terror—you name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.

I’ve stated this before—maybe this time you’ll get it.

[Gop1040]

“How big does this tent have to be? Should the Republican Party reach out and try to get the support of Cindy Sheehan and her supporters?”

Big enough to keep the presidency and retake congress.

[writeblock]

His private morals have nothing to do with governing well. Jimmy Carter has been faithful to his wife—but he was a lousy president. On the other hand, Rudy has moral courage—which he showed on 9/11—and before that, when he took on the Mafia despite threats to his life.

[Alberta's Child]

How much did it help the Republican Party to have Gerald Ford in the White House?

[Clemenza]

Yes, let’s nominate an unlikeable attention whore who’s knowledge of foreign policy comes from Chinese restaurant placemats and Cholo festivals in Queens. Yeah, a real winner...