Posted on 06/14/2007 5:49:27 PM PDT by pissant
Columnist, journalist, commentator and author George Will is supporting his fellow baseball fan, Rudy Giuliani, for the Republican presidential nomination and saying that Mr. Giuliani's eight years as mayor of New York were "the most successful episode of conservative governance" in America in the twentieth century.
BUT, Mr. Giuliani was the candidate of New York's LIBERAL Party in each of his three mayoral races (the first a failure, the next two successful)!
AND, when running for mayor, Mr. Giuliani pledged to "rekindle the Rockefeller/Javits/Lefkowitz tradition" of the Republican Party and "produce the kind of change New York City saw with Fiorella LaGuardia and with John Lindsay."
Republicans have plenty of grounds for concern about Mr. Giuliani.
Given Mr. Giuliani's political and personal history, who should be more comfortable with his promise to appoint justices and judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. -- pro-lifers or pro-abortioners? (Hint: Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richard: "It's encouraging to see that the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president supports the right to make personal private health care decisions free from government intrusion. Giuliani's principled stand disproves the old-school belief that you have to check your convictions at the Presidential primary door.")
Mr. Giuliani supported liberal Democrat Governor Mario Cuomo for re-election against his successful conservative Republican challenger, George Pataki.
Mr. Will, in "The Political Market is Working" (RealClearPolitics.com, February 18, 2007), opined: "Regarding the Republican race, for many months commentators have said that when the Republican base learns the facts about Rudy Giuliani's personal life (an annulled first marriage, a messy divorce, then a third marriage) and views on social issues (for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, in each case with limits), support for him will evaporate. But such commentary is becoming self-refuting."
The next month, in "Three Good Options for the Right" (RealClear Politics.com, May 8, 2007), Mr. Will counted Mr. Giuliani as one of the "good options," while conceding that Mr. Giuliani "is comprehensively out of step with social conservatives, and likely to remain so."
Mr. Giuliani's shifting position on abortion has been the result of political calculation, not principle or enlightenment.
That's almost admitted. On August 17, 1999, Associated Press reported: "Republican Rudolph Giuliani, weighing a bid for the U.S. Senate and perhaps courting support from New York's Conservative Party, appears to be hedging on past strong support for abortion rights. 'That's something I think that I'll address myself to if and when I announce and I get a chance to think out all of those positions,' the New York City mayor said when asked about his past opposition to a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions."
In addition, Mr. Giuliani's position HAS changed, as Mr. Will must know. On February 6, 2000, on ABC News' "This Week , Mr. Will asked Mr. Giuliani if his support of partial-birth abortion was firm and Mr. Giuliani replied, "All of my positions are firm."
Firm, until revised or (in the case of wedding vows), broken.
When it comes to a partial-birth abortion ban, Mr. Giuliani was against it before he was for it!
But he had insisted that he would not change his position to win votes.
Really!
On February 8, 2000, on Fox News' "Special Report with Brit Hume," in discussing his support of partial-birth abortions costing him conservative support in a possible Senate race, Mr. Giuliani claimed to be too principled to play politics: "I'm not going to twist myself all around for anybody's endorsement. I wouldn't do it for the Republican endorsement, much less the Liberal or the Conservative or any other. They know who I am. If they think I'll be a better senator, they should support me. If they don't think I'll be a better senator, they should support somebody else."
These days Mr. Giuliani's against partial-birth abortion, but otherwise for abortion as a permissible choice.
In 1999 Mr. Giuliani told CNN ("Inside Politics," December 2) not only that he opposed a partial-birth abortion ban, but that he didn't "see [his] position on that changing."
So much for his foresight.
On February 6, 2000, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Giuliani said that if he were a United States Senator, he "would vote to preserve the [partial-birth abortion] option for the mother."
The same day, on CNN's "Late Edition," Mr. Giuliani said he would vote to uphold a Clinton veto of a partial-birth abortion ban. Mr. Giuliani: "Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it."
Before September 11, 2001, specifically, on April 19, 1998, when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked, "Do you think someone like you, who supports a woman's right to have an abortion, could have a place at the top or at least the number-two slot of the Republican Party's presidential ticket?" and "does that also hold for the late-term abortion procedure that's called the partial-birth abortion procedure?," Mr. Giuliani was not completely supportive of the so-called partial-birth abortion option: "I think that's more complicated, state to state. I mean, different states have different rules and different regulations, and I think that gets to be more complicated."
To those who think Mr. Giuliani is fit to be the next Republican presidential candidate, I say, Mr. Giulinai's own press releases show that he is not suitable.
When it came to combating illegal immigration, Mr. Giuliani chose to challenge the federal government instead of to cooperate.
See "MAYOR GIULIANI ANNOUNCES CITY HAS FILED SUIT TO CHALLENGE FEDERAL WELFARE AND IMMIGRATION LAWS," Release #511-96, October 11, 1996:
"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani today announced that the New York City Corporation Counsel has filed a law suit against the federal government challenging two provisions of the recently enacted Federal Welfare and Immigration laws. The suit contends that these laws are unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by invalidating New York City's 'Executive Order 124.'
Columnist, journalist, commentator and author George Will is supporting his fellow baseball fan, Rudy Giuliani, for the Republican presidential nomination and saying that Mr. Giuliani's eight years as mayor of New York were "the most successful episode of conservative governance" in America in the twentieth century.
If that were true, it would be pretty pathetic for "conservative governance".
There is nothing conservative about suing gun companies for street crime.
There is nothing conservative about declaring your city a sanctuary for illegal aliens.
There is nothing conservative about squelching legal and legimite political dissent.
There is nothing conservative about cronyism or trying to hide your friend's mob ties while trying to get him a government job.
There is nothing conservative about Rudy Giuliani, except his empty rhetoric.
I’ll give Rudy his due as a tax cutter and a fighter against some liberal interest groups - with gusto. However, he used the same gusto to champion the very unacceptable things you mentioned, and more.
I have not seen flashbunny for months. Is he still kicking?
Me no see.
The 700 threads of Rudy bashing inspired me to comment about one aspect of his politics.
The perception that he somehow made New York a haven for illegals. My friends, as most of you are aware this entire COUNTRY is a haven, and has been for 40 some odd years. No conservative in any position of authority has done jack squat about. Considering his experience at the DOJ nobody knew better than Rudy that the federal government was unwilling and unable to handle illegal immigration in any serious manner. I think he has two choices, Govern the city he was elected in or declare certain areas of the city to be war zones with no law and order. If the local government says that every police officer you see has the power to take away whatever life you built for youself here as an illegal, your ability to maintain any sort of government disappears.
The reason I say this is because if you were a hardass and decided to enforce the laws of this country and told your police (50,000 of ‘em in a city of 8 million) to arrest illegals what magical mystery department and process of the federal government do you think exists to hand them over to. You remember the federal government don’t you? The ones responsible for our boarders? The ones who let the first world trade center bombing ringleaders in through JFK airport via LITERALLY a keystone cops distraction.
I find it admirable and patriotic when little townships declare a no tolerance policy on illegals but it’s not realistic in our large cities, tough luck, that ship sailed a long time ago.
I have seen enough horror stories of this agency or that fining or regulating some business or individual to an obscene degree. Give me a ring when an elected official uses this power of government to fine some business out of existence for willfully abetting illegal immigration. I would feel sorry, but the next business sure would shape up.
May 7, 2000
Mayor and Mrs. Clinton Woo Liberal Party
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E5DD1238F934A35756C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday returned to what has been a solid source of support throughout his political career — the Liberal Party, and its leader, Raymond B. Harding — and asked for the party’s backing as he sets his sights on the United States Senate. But Hillary Rodham Clinton also appeared before the same group, arguing that her views were more in touch with the Liberal ideology than were those of the Republican mayor.
Mr. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton each spent an hour in private at a Manhattan hotel with the policy committee of the Liberal Party, the first step in the party’s move toward choosing its nominee by June 6. This usually barely noticed rite for candidates in New York drew a bustle of attention yesterday, evidenced by a lineup of cameras and security officers, reflecting the state and national political implications that have become attached to the decision by Mr. Harding’s party.
‘’This is not my first time being interviewed by the Liberal Party,’’ Mr. Giuliani said as soon as he left the meeting, grinning as he noted his longstanding ties with one of the smaller parties that his advisers believe could provide the winning margin in this election. When a reporter asked if he considered Mr. Harding a close adviser, Mr. Giuliani responded: ‘’I consider Ray Harding to be more than a close adviser. I consider him a close personal friend.’’
Mrs. Clinton pointed to the same friendship in remarks that seemed to lower expectations on her chances of winning the support of a party that almost invariably backs the Democratic candidate in statewide elections. ‘’I’m well aware of the mayor’s relationship with Mr. Harding and the party,’’ she said. ‘’But I came today to ask for their consideration, based on the issues that I’m talking about in this campaign and what I would do in the Senate.’’
As Mrs. Clinton knows, the only time a Democrat running for statewide office won without the cross-endorsement of the Liberal Party occurred in a Court of Appeals race in the 1970’s, when judges to the state’s highest court were still elected. Mr. Giuliani’s aides noted this fact in a handout they distributed to reporters just before Mrs. Clinton left the committee meeting to talk with reporters.
The Liberal Party has helped Mr. Giuliani’s electoral success as mayor, not so much because of the relatively few votes he drew on the Liberal line, but because the party’s support has allowed him to blur his ideological designation, making it more comfortable for some Democrats to vote for him.
Mr. Harding was able to steer the endorsement to Mr. Giuliani with relatively little difficulty during his three races for mayor. But this high-visibility Senate race has presented the party with a particularly complicated choice. And it has put Mr. Harding in the position of choosing between the potential future of the 55-year-old party and his loyalty to a man who is a close friend and a source of jobs for his family and party.
In an unusual display of public dissension, some Liberal Party members have said in recent days that they would oppose backing Mr. Giuliani, saying it would be a betrayal of the party’s philosophy to send another Republican to the Senate. And if Mr. Harding backs Mr. Giuliani, he risks losing a presidential candidate: Mrs. Clinton’s aides have been pushing Vice President Al Gore to decline the Liberal Party line if the party backs Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Gore’s aides said yesterday that he might accede to Mrs. Clinton’s request. They said he would put off the decision as long as possible, giving him time to assess whether he needs the Liberal Party to win in New York (right now, his aides think he does not), as well as to see whether Mr. Giuliani stays in the race.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Mr. Gore’s campaign, said that the vice president was now beginning a closer look at the thicket of independent parties in New York, and that he would ‘’consider the endorsement’’ of any party that shared his views. However, Mr. Ragone added, ‘’the vice president is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, and our campaign will do everything we can to elect her the next senator from New York.’’
Several of Mr. Harding’s friends have tried to convince him that the Liberal Party’s standing might be permanently damaged if it supports Mr. Giuliani and he defeats Mrs. Clinton this fall. And the advantage that Mr. Harding now enjoys by having Mr. Giuliani in City Hall ends in a year even if the mayor loses, because he will not be allowed to run for a third consecutive term.
Mr. Harding has told friends that he will delay a decision as long as possible, in no small part to see whether Mr. Giuliani stays in the race. The mayor learned recently that he has prostate cancer and has said his medical condition would determine whether he stayed in the race.
The Liberal Party endorsement has been important to Mr. Giuliani’s political success to date, but he may be taking some risks in aggressively seeking its support in this race. For one thing, taking the Liberal Party line means giving up the Conservative Party line, said the Conservative Party chairman, Michael Long, who said it was ideologically dishonest for one candidate to run on both lines. The Conservative Party historically has been as critical to statewide Republican candidates as the Liberal has been to Democrats.
‘’What he did today — with Hillary, no less — they both went and knelt at the altar of Ray Harding, who in fact gave us Bella Abzug, John Lindsay and Mario Cuomo,’’ Mr. Long said. ‘’That sends a clear signal to the world that he wants to run with Al Gore, he wants to keep the Liberal tradition, and I don’t know who the real Giuliani is.’’
In addition, running as the Liberal candidate is likely to complicate Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as a liberal. That has been the thrust of his fund-raising appeals, and statewide Republican candidates have, for a decade, routinely attacked their Democratic opponents as liberal.
When Mr. Giuliani was asked yesterday whether he considered Mrs. Clinton a liberal, he demurred. ‘’I think it would be overly simplistic to put labels on people,’’ he said. ‘’I think you can say somebody is a liberal on something and moderate on something else and conservative on something else.’’
Turning the question to himself, Mr. Giuliani said: ‘’I think about me, they would say, he’s conservative on economic matters, he’s conservative on law and order. But he’s moderate, and possibly even liberal, on social issues. It would depend on the part of the country you’re in. In New York City, I’m often seen as very conservative. I travel south and west, I’m seen as very liberal. I like that, actually.’’
Mr. Harding greeted Mrs. Clinton politely when she arrived at the meeting at the Intercontinental Hotel, but, one participant said, asked no questions, sitting quietly in the back of a room that was thick with cigarette smoke.
Mr. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton share positions in their support of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, as Mr. Harding noted after the meeting. But Mrs. Clinton pointed out some differences between them on issues of concern to Liberals, including her opposition to Mr. Giuliani’s school voucher program, and her criticism of the large tax cuts being advocated by Republicans in Washington.
Asked her view of what the Liberal Party stood for, she responded: ‘’Based on what I know of it and what I’ve read about it, it stands for a sort of positive, progressive tradition in New York politics, and the kind of issues we’ve talked about. Very strong support for public education. Strong support for child care and working families. Strong support for a minimum wage increase.’’
Giuliani gets his positions on every from advisors. We don’t need 5 middlemen running the White House.
We elect one President, not mulitple.
I just threw 5 out there, I don’t know how many advisors he has.
Yet, when Clinton and the GOP congress attempted in the mid 90s to put more teeth, money, resources and deportations into the mix, Rudy fought it.
The man never uttered the words “illegal alien” when describing these people, choosing to conflate CONSTANTLY legal and illegal by calling them “immigrants”. He has by far the worst record dealing with illegal immigration of ANY candidate of either party.
His new excuse of “well, the feds wouldn’t do their job” is obfuscation. Why was he not demanding more federal help? Instead, like most liberals, he WANTED them to stay put, and siad so emphatically many, many times.
More onerous laws against illegal immigration - scream out aginst.
More onerous laws against gun owners - lobby congress on behalf of Clinton.
He is not worthy to even be in this primary as a republican.
There's a difference between choosing not to enforce laws in order to prevent riots and insurrection, and declaring a place to be a sanctuary city. One is passive lawlessness, the other is active lawlessness.
I could be wrong here, perhaps you can cite Federal or State law that allows mayors to declare their cities as sanctuaries for illegals.
In all seriousness I would think the 10th amendment may allow for this.
I don’t see a difference; I have to respect his assessment of the situation as it existed not as he wished it to be. I honestly don’t recall what Clinton + the Republican congress proposed but I am certain it was half hearted feel good legislation at best, and as someone in the trenches he understood it was pointless.
I think we have to accept at this stage of the game is that mass enforcement of existing laws are impossible after a 30 year lapse, you may want some kind of mythical magical deportation process, it’s not happening.
We need to pass some kind of legislation that is ONLY for identification and documentation to actively weed out gang members and so forth, none of this will ever happen unless there is a nationwide, crushing and overwhelming legal crackdown on business. No swat teams raiding construction sites and BS sob stories in the New York Times of families being torn apart. All it takes is a DHS/IRS guy in a suit exercising the legitimate power that the federal government does and should have.
Pick a state, pick the largest employer of illegals, walk in to the HR office, give them 90 days to make sure their employees have said new identification card. After 90 days come back with massive, overwhelming, punitive fines. The first target of this will probably be greatly hurt financially, everybody else will comply, and there goes your sanctuary and immunity.
And if that means more expensive lettuce, so be it.
oh and in case there is any doubt on my point of view in general, at the same time, fund the wall and the agents to man it.
Next phase would be for those sucking on the public teat. I make them next, because I don't want them clogging up the wheels of bureaucracy ahead of those willing to work for a living. Then, you move on to people already employed, and weed out the last level of illegals. An amnesty of "go back, and apply for resident status" is offered to those who have employer-sponsored support, and who did NOT steal someone else's SSN or identity to get in. The IRS gives taxpayer identification numbers to anyone who wants them, no questions asked, so there has been no excuse for identity theft.
Dry up the jobs, and the bennies, and the illegals deport themselves over the next few years. No sudden impact on any industry that is not substantially employing illegals, and no riots in the streets or sob stories of the kind you describe.
And Rudy paid back the Liberal Party in spades----he was THAT appreciative.
(1) Mayor Rudy appointed Liberal Party Chairwoman Fran Reiter as Deputy Mayor. Rudy later gave her a $250K city job.
(2) Mayor Rudy gave the two sons of Liberal Party honcho Ray Harding top city jobs.
One Harding brother---Russel---stole the city blind, giving himself unauthorized salary raises, stealing electronic equipment, enjoying gay porn, internet child porn, and traveling with gay friends on the taxpayers' dime.
When Rudy was appraised of Russel's theft, and that Russel was being prosecuted (he is now in jail), Rudy said he "felt bad" for the Harding family (gag).
Rudy never never deviated from the "I-Love-Liberals" drill and dared not utter a discouraging word about the depraved Russel, lest Rudy alienate big buck liberal donors and voters.
A look at Rudy's past is a glimpse into the future.
Yep, let's just all give up, drink the koolaid, and die. No thank you.
I was at least giving Giuliani credit for being a tax-cutter, too...until I ran across all sorts of articles that discussed how Giuliani fought loudly against tax cuts at the state level, and pushed for all sorts of spending on the federal level (including lots of pork for programs like midnight basketball). He cut some taxes on the city level — but did so by fighting to make sure New York state residents and residents of the other 49 states didn’t get tax cuts, so that they could subsidize his big spending NYC programs.
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.