Posted on 10/22/2007 11:09:26 AM PDT by freedomdefender
Rudi Giuliani’s campaign depends to a great extent on his clean-up of crime in NY City in the 1990s. It allows him to cover up a multitude of his non-conservative policies. Consider this exchange from yesterday’s GOP debate:
Fred Thompson: Mayor Giuliani believes in federal funding for abortion. He believes in sanctuary cities. He’s for gun control. He supported Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat, against a Republican who was running for governor; then opposed the governor’s tax cuts when he was there.
Rudi: I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country. The senator has never had executive responsibility. He’s never had the weight of people’s safety and security on his shoulders.
Well, whatever Rudi did in NY City, across the country crime also fell sharply in the 1990s:
According to new research by a University of California, Berkeley, law professor, the crime rate dropped dramatically during the 1990s, falling 40 percent in cities and states across the country and in all major crime categories from homicides to auto thefts, producing the longest and deepest crime decline in the United States since World War II.
And besides, since when is local crime a federal responsibility? We need to get rid of all federal involvement in local police matters, including cutting off all funding using U.S. taxpayers’ money.
Finally, most Americans just don’t like NY City. They hate the Yankees baseball team. They don’t like the pushy attitude of New Yorkers. And they don’t like paying for the vast federal subsidies that go to the city.
Maybe Rudi can be Hillary’s running mate.
He did the same thing in his first question at the debate. He was tough on crime. We are not trying to elect a tough on crime guy.
Rooty needs to go back to prosecutor status. He is the absolute worst GOP nominee. Even worse than Dole.
If he goes away, we have a great chance at beating the old woman. If he stays, party splinters and Hillary wins.
If you honestly believe NY’s crime rate would have had the same trajectory under Dinkins as it had under Giuliani, I have a Nigerian financial advisor I’d like to introduce you to.
But ya shore took a cotton to our ‘horseless carriages an ‘lectrcity...
> I’m curious how anyone can be for national defense and for sanctuary for illegals at the same time? Rudy is not tough on illegal immigration so how is he supposed to keep his promise of safety for this country?
I presume you are referring to Giuliani not prosecuting illegal aliens for reporting crime in NYC. As a mayor he had no authority to prosecute illegal aliens. Since the federal government was not going to handle the problem he did the best he could under the circumstances. I also believe that as a candidate he came out against the latest immigration bill.
But let’s assume that Giuliani will be no better on illegal immigration than George Bush. He would still be significantly stronger on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and War on Terror than Clinton; making him significantly stronger on national security.
> So he may be better on Taxation than Hillary, but since he’s pro abortion, anti-second ammendment and pro-illegal invasion, that means he’s one notch better than hillary? There is no indication he would appoint Justices that we would consider conservative.
Giuliani repeatedly stated that he would appoint judges like Alito. Given that he has not changed his stances on any issues to suit the prevailing opinion, there is every reason to believe that this would be the case.
According to the matrix, Giuliani is 3 notches better than Clinton (national security, Supreme Court, taxes). How many notches are required for a vote?
Never mind THAT.
The question for the irreconcilables is, "what would have happened if Hillary had been elected mayor in 1993, instead of Rudy?"
Rudy has changed several things during this campaign. He has said he would build a fence, then said a "virtual fence". Which is it?
You are obviously for Rudy, and I'm not. No amount of changing his mind or pandering will change how I feel about him. He's hillary with better legs.
Amen.
And, what did Rudy ever do to clean up crime, other than assault Second Amendment rights?
Again, it is quite valid to criticize Rudy's stances on guns, abortion, etc. But it is akin to 9/11 "truther" thinking to argue he did not actually accomplish some good in NYC during his tenure. If you and like-minded folks want to drive anyone with direct knowledge of the facts out of the GOP, keep up the mantra. And don't come crying to us when you wonder where your electoral votes went.
Bash Rudy on his positions, but don't insult others by misrepresenting things he actually did.
> Guiliani has said he would appoint constructionist judges. That’s all he has said. He has also said his policies are the same as Hillary - is that acceptable to you?
(1) I like constructionist judges. (2) In my post, I outlined 3 areas where it would be reasonably to expect that Giuliani’s policies will be significantly better than Clinton’s.
> Rudy has changed several things during this campaign. He has said he would build a fence, then said a “virtual fence”. Which is it?
I don’t know. I have no heard either of the claims; I will take your word that they are accurate. Even with a virtual fence he is better on illegal immigration than Bush, not to mention Clinton.
> You are obviously for Rudy, and I’m not. No amount of changing his mind or pandering will change how I feel about him. He’s hillary with better legs.
Actually, I prefer Romney. However, I recognize that any of the Republican candidates will be significantly better than Clinton (or Obama or Edwards). The only exception is Paul, who is weaker on defense than Clinton.
Exactly. The get-tough attitude during the Reagan "just say no" years led to crime dropping in the nineties.
I live a half hour from the place, and I don't give a rip about it!
What evidence do you have that Giuliani would be better than Clinton on the war and national security? His only strength in this area is that he can get in front of the cameras and run his mouth about how damned tough he’d be as president. He has no foreign policy experience and has never served in the military. He doesn’t have an extensive education in foreign affairs and I don’t even know if he’s even studied the issues beyond the campaign sound bite level. Who are his foreign policy and military advisors, and who would he appoint as Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State, for instance? Heck, I don’t even think he’s traveled much outside the U.S. for that matter, even as an ordinary tourist.
> What evidence do you have that Giuliani would be better than Clinton on the war and national security?
I have no evidence. That was why I said “...it would be reasonably to expect that Giuliani’s policies will be significantly better than Clinton’s.”
The only thing we have is candidate’s rhetoric and background. We use both to make a selection and hope for the best. Giuliani’s rhetoric, especially on national security, is excellent. His background, from the time he was a NYC mayor, also indicates that he will be a strong leader who will put emphasis on safety and security.
> He has no foreign policy experience and has never served in the military. He doesn’t have an extensive education in foreign affairs and I don’t even know if he’s even studied the issues beyond the campaign sound bite level. Who are his foreign policy and military advisors, and who would he appoint as Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State, for instance? Heck, I don’t even think he’s traveled much outside the U.S. for that matter, even as an ordinary tourist.
I am sorry, but John Kerry is not running in this election cycle.
And sorry again, but Rudy's tired and empty tough guy rhetoric just isn't going to cut it, either for me or for most voters concerned about national security. Has the guy said in specific detail about what he'd do about ANY issue?
I was just asking my family (17 year old son, who will vote next year, myself, and my husband) who they are voting for. My Husband, a huge 2nd Amendment supporter, is between Huckabee and McCain, my son is Huckabee all the way, and I am Rudy. None of them see anything in Fred. We all said that in the end it will be whoever is running against Hillary.
> Sorry, you haven’t explained why it would be reasonable to expect that Giuliani would be better than Clinton on the war and foreign policy. Exactly how would their policies be different? Say what you want about Clinton, but as co-president she at least had the balls to attack five, count ‘em, five foreign countries.
Presumably we can agree that attacking many foreign countries is not necessarily a good foreign policy. As far as how I think they differ, here are a couple of examples:
1. Giuliani states that he will persevere in Iraq, Afghanistan and the general War on Terror until victory. Clinton promises to withdraw troops as soon as a face saving method is found.
2. Giuliani stated that the only think worse than attacking Iran is Iran with a nuclear weapon. Clinton stated that the only thing worse that Iran with a nuclear weapon is attacking Iran.
These are two very direct comparisons. You may choose to believe him or not, but it is disingenuous to justify your dislike of Giuliani by claiming that there is no difference between him and Clinton. The only place where Giuliani’s and Clinton’s positions appear to match is on abortion. And even on abortion Giuliani’s stated policies with regard to possible Supreme Court nominees appear to be significantly different from Clinton’s.
I do not pretend to know how most voters will act. I do think it would be self-defeating to withhold a vote from a candidate who agrees with your positions, let us say, 50% of the time. Because you may well get a President who disagrees with your positions 100% of the time.
As for the charming Mrs. Clinton, she has been making some tough sounding noises lately, as explored in this thread, "Clinton open to military action against Iran nukes":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1911927/posts
Now, granted she is a proven liar who will say anything to get elected, but if Rudy (God forbid!) is the nominee, he's going to have to get specific and lay out a program, if for no other reason than the DBM won't give him a pass.
But hey, I'm a reasonable guy and open to being impressed. For example, why doesn't Rudy promise, in order to secure the Homeland, to immediately complete a full double fence on BOTH our southern and northern borders, to quadruple the size of the Border Patrol, and to identify and deport all aliens residing here illegally? If he said that it might make me forget some of his more obnoxious liberal social policies, his lack of character, his lack of military experience, and his backstabbing of Pataki back in 1994, to name just a few of his little foibles.
> Oooh, so tough guy Rudy would “persevere in Iraq,” huh? You still haven’t given me any specifics about how Rudy would fight the wars or change strategies, mostly because this military and foreign policy ignoramus hasn’t given any, at least, none that I know of.
I have no idea about specific strategies or tactics Bush, Giuliani, Clinton or any one else would use in Iraq or else where.
> But hey, I’m a reasonable guy and open to being impressed. For example, why doesn’t Rudy promise, in order to secure the Homeland, to immediately complete a full double fence on BOTH our southern and northern borders, to quadruple the size of the Border Patrol, and to identify and deport all aliens residing here illegally? If he said that it might make me forget some of his more obnoxious liberal social policies, his lack of character, his lack of military experience, and his backstabbing of Pataki back in 1994, to name just a few of his little foibles.
I have no idea how any one would “immediately” complete thousands of miles of high-tech (double) fencing let alone identify and deport perhaps as many as 40 million people who do not wish to be identified or deported. Perhaps you should run for President.
“The liberal party was a tiny local clique that inherited a ballot line. It had nothing to do with being ‘liberal’.”
Spin it how you will, the Liberal party is, indeed, liberal.
http://www.liberalparty.org/platform.shtml
Again, Rudy certain is "liberal" on guns, abortion, etc., and it's fine to bash him on that. But be careful about treading into areas where the facts can be tripped over, leaving you and your cause looking foolish.
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.