(Adulterer, flip-flopper) Giuliani asks Values Voters to trust him

The Politico ^ | 10/20/-2007 | Mike Allen

[narby]

***ummm, NO. Rudy is a socialist.

Ummm, No. He's not. But Hillary is.

I'm very disappointed to see conservatives display the same kind of character assassination techniques via cherry picked quotes and other means that was pioneered by the Carville gang. I thought conservatives were thoughtful and intelligent, but this attempted hit job on Rudi is just pure emotion with no brains attached.

[Kevmo]

Baloney.

I like how Cogamer had to say it, so once again I’m stealing it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909436/posts?page=158#152

some people on this board are PUSHING it. They not only expect us to grin and tolerate it, they expect us to help!! They see conservatives being marginalized, and then bash conservatives for not supporting the politicians who are marginalizing them. It’s insane!

Let’s look at this through the prism of other movements: Would pro-choice women vote for a politician who announced he wanted to make abortion illegal? Would black voters ever support a politician who wanted to bring back segregation? Would muslims ever support a candidate who was on the record as saying islam was evil?

Would their friends even TRY to tell them they HAD to vote for these candidates even if they didn’t want to?

No! But conservatives are expected to vote for anyone who has an R after their name, no matter how dangerous to the movement, just to avoid the ire of a bunch of wishy-washy phonies whose only brush with conservatism is the fact that they post to this website.

They need to understand - if they nominate Rudy, THEY are responsible for what follows. THEY know many will refuse to support him. So, turning their flawed logic on its head : If they support Rudy, they must actually want Hillary to win. Indeed - if Hillary changed parties they’d be telling us we had to support HER to stop OBAMA!!!!

152 posted on 10/10/2007 6:28:13 PM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[narby]

You need to understand that I don't care who gets the nomination, as long as they can win next Nov. My only point is that whomever it is, conservatives that don't support the candidate 100% are voting for Hillary Clinton and the whole Democrat liberal machine that goes with her. Say what you want about Giuliani, but he won't be bringing that Democratic machine back to DC.

Are we communicating?

[Man50D]

You need to understand that I don't care who gets the nomination, as long as they can win next Nov.

Conservatives have understood that conventional Republican thinking for a long time. That is the type of GOP thinking that has caused the party to go down the socialist road. Win at all costs at the expense of principles will cost you all you everything in the long run.

[flaglady47]

If we DON’T take down this tootyfruityrudy candidacy, the republican party will fall into obscurity the same way the Whig party did, and for very similar reasons.

Total hyperbole. Rudy would be fine as President, and at least he speaks the king’s English well. Your doomsday scenario is not warranted and based on no fact. Rudy did a great job in NY in cleaning up crime, taking care of day to day business of running a city, lowered taxes, and of course displayed great leadership during 9/11. If he did no more than that kind of work as Prez he would be doing quite well. Rudy said he would do no harm to the conservative point of view. Now, any of the candidates can be lying to us and any or most of them will probably lurch to the center when running in the general, but that we have no control over, just as what happened with Bush. Bush is next to a RINO now. It’s a crap shoot. But Rudy will not ruin the Presidency any more than any of the candidates might. Look what we’ve got now. Just about anything will be an improvement.

[narby]

Win at all costs at the expense of principles will cost you all you everything in the long run.

Anything less than that and you're the Libertarian party. They never compromise on the principles. And they never win either.

[narby]

The primary issue against Giuliani is abortion. But the fact is that the only difference between Bush and Giuliani on abortion is that Bush says he would like to get rid of it, and Giuliani says otherwise. Neither one of them has done squat on the subject except talk, and as president, neither could do any more or less.

The anti-abortion people have utterly failed in their job of convincing enough of the general population to oppose abortion. Without that, then the status quo will remain.

Voting for pro-life Bush was a worthless gesture regarding abortion. Giuliani says he wants strict-constructionist judges, and there are plenty of other reasons besides abortion to want that. So I take him at his word.

This whole bruhaha litmus test about abortion is much to do about nothing. The pro-life people have to do their job first, and then both parties will beat a path to an anti-abortion amendment, or whatever it takes to get rid of it. Until then, they should quit waisting their time and money on partisan politics and spend their time convincing the populace to oppose abortion. Until they succeed in that, they're merely getting in the way of other worthwhile conservative issues.

[Petronski]

There are several flaws in your post, like this one:

Voting for pro-life Bush was a worthless gesture regarding abortion.

Too soon to say on that, regarding Roe, but the Embryonic Stem Cell Research decision is a huge pro-life difference.

But the fact is that the only difference between Bush and Giuliani on abortion is that Bush says he would like to get rid of it, and Giuliani says otherwise.

That's not a fact. It's false. Rudy wants federal funding for abortion. Rudy proclaims he is pro-abortion. You do not speak the truth about this "only difference" between them.

[Petronski]

Rudy would be fine as President, and at least he speaks the king’s English well.

He's pro-abortion, anti-gun and has (by many accounts) a petty tyrannical personality.

[Petronski]

You need to understand that I don't care who gets the nomination, as long as they can win next Nov....Are we communicating?

Very well, I'd say. Your primary goal is power. Principled use of that power is not a priority.

[Petronski]

And the gangrene metaphor is total bollocks.

Except for being completely true.

[Petronski]

Fact remains, the moment you begin comparing ANYONE in US politics to Hitler and Mussolini, you've lost the argument because the comparison is not only untrue, but it's intentionally dishonest.

False.

One can compare a candidate to Hitler or Mussolini in one respect without stating they are alike in all respects.

[Petronski]

No president, Democrat or Republican, can seriously affect the abortion argument. They will eventually change things by judges...

How sophomoric! Who appoints the judges?

If you really believe you're going to get a Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts from Rudy, I've got some rain forest land in Malibu to sell you.

[Man50D]

doomsday scenario is not warranted and based on no fact. Rudy did a great job in NY in cleaning up crime, taking care of day to day business of running a city, lowered taxes, and of course displayed great leadership during 9/11.

On Giuliani and taxes:

---"Over the objections of a furious Mayor Giuliani and city legislators from both parties, the New York state legislature has abolished the New York City commuter tax. The action, done to apparently affect a local legislative race in suburban Rockland County, could cost New York City $360 million. NPR's Margot Adler reports."--- NPR Report

---"Let's face it: Rudy Giuliani argued for the reinstatement of the tax,..."--- NY Sun report [Giuliani] says ruling out a tax increase is "political pandering." Newsday, August 31, 1989

"when I ran for Mayor both times, I was asked very, very often to do the following: Pledge that you will never raise taxes. I refused to do that. Pledge that you will lower taxes. I refused to do that." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, October 25, 1994

Mr. Giuliani criticized Mr. Pataki’s proposal to cut taxes as “a shell game” that would hurt everyone in the state… -- New York Times, October 30, 1994

On 9/11 leadership

After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 when Giuliani became mayor, he was criticized for not fully implementing a single recommendation made by the fire department official who identified crucial emergency response failures. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 10/1/06

GIULIANI FAILED TO PREPARE NEW YORK AFTER 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK * Giuliani Decided to Put Emergency Command Center in Vulnerable World Trade Center. Giuliani, who became mayor after the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, according to Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins’ “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” made “the infamous decision to place the city’s emergency command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center because he didn’t want to schlep to a more secure, better-protected Brooklyn location from City Hall. When the planes hit the trade center, OEM’s bunker-in-the- clouds was rendered useless, and Giuliani was forced to embark on his dusty journey through lower Manhattan, scattering the city’s command structure.” [South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), 10/1/06]

* Giuliani Failed to Put In A Clear Chain of Command for Emergency Workers. “Giuliani and his top aides did not put in place a clear chain of command for police officers and firefighters.” [Washington Post, 8/17/06]

On Giuliani and Running The City(Sanctuary city, Government Spending):

Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.

Mr. Giuliani said the surplus from the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, is projected to be $856 million, a record amount caused largely by higher-than-expected tax revenues from robust profits on Wall Street. He said for the first time that he wanted to use $99 million of that money to help the city adapt to the new strict Federal welfare rules by paying for child care, job training and other programs. Source: New York Times, Clifford Levy, 5/9/97

iuliani allowed spending to increase significantly faster than inflation during four of his last five years in office - and another big increase was in store for fiscal 2002 before the World Trade Center attack forced the city into an austerity mode. Source: FISCALWATCH MEMO July 20, 2004

According to New York's Independent Budget Office, total budgeted expenditures grew from $31.8 billion in 1995 (Rudy's first budget year) to $44.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 40.3%. By comparison, the inflation rate from January 1995 to January 2003 was 20.89% according to this inflation rate calculator. Thus, New York City's spending under Rudy grew at a rate twice that of inflation.

Perhaps the biggest difference is on fiscal issues. Giuliani, who lost interest in curtailing the growth of city government in his latter years, left behind a fiscal catastrophe—a $6.4 billion deficit proportionately bigger than the hole that caused the 1975 fiscal shortfall. --- Jacob Weisberg, Slate magazine 2/21/07

[sofaman]

"One can compare a candidate to Hitler or Mussolini in one respect without stating they are alike in all respects."

Flag! 15 yard Penalty. Verbal Gymnastics.

The intention is to tar the opposition as a fascist or a Nazi. Considering the number of people murdered at the hands of the Nazis, to a greater extent, and by Mussolini's fascisti, to a lesser extent, the comparison should be dismissed as outrageous, which is what it is.

There is no-one in American politics that is worthy of comparison to the Nazis. No matter how hard the linguistic contortions.

That's my opinion...

[Petronski]

You’re entitled to be wrong, and this time you are.

[sofaman]

c'mon, P...you're a smart, reasonable guy. You know what the intention of using the comparison is. It's a pejorative and it's plainly inflammatory.

I'm not arguing the point to be contentious or simply to pick a fight. I, honestly, find it offensive.

From a personal perspective, I remember sitting with my grandmother, and her telling me "stories".. about her family. Aside from her parents, she had 11 siblings, most of whom were married with families. They were all wiped out by the Nazis. They didn't even make it to the death camps.

So, hopefully, you'll understand why I am sensitive to, and take a very dim view of, a comparison that really doesn't have any basis in fact.

Nazism and Fascism were a doctrine, a policy, that can't be conveyed by comparison to any one act or failure to act.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not looking to be contentious or pick a fight. That is my perspective. Have a good evening and take care.

[Petronski]

Nazism and Fascism were a doctrine, a policy, that can't be conveyed by comparison to any one act or failure to act.

What does that have to do with comparing someone to Hitler in one respect?

You've got it all backwards and around. If I compare Bill Clinton's presidency to Hitler's early political campaigns by pointing out that they both applied "an issue a day" methodologies, that does not mean I believe Bill Clinton hates Jews.

It is perfectly legimate to compare them on one point, and that does not flow to a statement that they are alike in all respects.

I won't sit here while you or anyone lectures me on the evils of Nazism--as though I don't know or attempt to deny them?

Good day to you sir.

[sofaman]

my tone was friendly. It was not intended to be a lecture... it was intended to be a friendly conversation. Never mind.

[Kevmo]

You need to understand that this is NOT a GOP website. This is a socon website. Are we communicating?