Endorsing Giuliani

By AcademicElephant Posted in | | Comments (99) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Promoted from diaries by Mark I.

Following the example of many of my esteemed colleagues, I thought I'd ring in the new year by endorsing a Republican candidate for President.

My decision-making process in this cycle has been a simple one as on my trump issue, national security, one candidate has the qualities I would like to see in a commander in chief. That candidate is Rudy Giuliani.

Read on...

Oh, I know it’s not fashionable to support the Mayor these days. He took a beating in December over allegations (since proven unfounded) that he abused City funds to pursue his extra-curricular love life. His failure to do a Romney-style flip-flop on social issues has earned him the undying enmity of many on the right. His strategy (and it is a strategy, by the way) of trying to reduce the utterly inequitable influence of Iowa and New Hampshire over the primary process and focus instead on states with more than seven electoral votes has been declared dead-before-arrival by those who are quite sure they know better. Conventional wisdom wags its sagacious head and tells us he’s done.

But then again, Rudy’s never been a conventional wisdom type. And neither have I.

So here’s why I've chosen Giuliani. He functions under inconceivable pressure. When the proverbial refuse hits the fan, he is able to think beyond himself, make decisions and exert that elusive quality of “leadership” that can pull a country through tragedy and loss. You don’t need me to tell you this. We know it for a grim fact. We all remember where we were on 9/11. I think it’s pretty safe to say we all remember Giuliani. I cannot tell you how Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee would behave under comparable circumstances. I can guess, and I expect some would do better than others. Certainly Senator McCain’s biography demonstrates that the Mayor does not have a monopoly on personal heroism. But do I think any of them would surpass Giuliani in a major national security crisis? I do not, and I do think that's the ultimate test of a President.

I suppose the question then becomes will anything hit the fan over the next 4-8 years? My instincts say it’s pretty likely, and in this case I don't mind having a President who takes the War on Terror (or the Terrorists' War on Us) personally and seriously. But if it doesn’t, would that render a Giuliani presidency irrelevant? I don’t think so. He demonstrates a sharp and lively grasp of national and international issues--indeed, some describe him as too interested in policy--but I don't think that's possible. Beyond his performance on 9/11, I believe a stint in the Reagan Justice Department alongside the likes of John Bolton and Ted Olson followed by an impressive performance in an impossible job as mayor of a failing city is a pretty good resume to be President. He has both Federal and local experience. He’s been part of a team and an executive. Furthermore he is intelligent and articulate and brings a creative energy and confidence to all his endeavors that I think will serve him well as President.

So how would Mr. Giuliani do in Washington when bullets aren’t flying? Given his record in New York, I expect he would try to shake things up at State, Defense and Justice. He would probably have a pretty tumultuous relationship with Congress. But in all these cases, I think that’s a good thing. The status quo in any of those three major departments is simply unacceptable, as is any candidate who thinks it is. And to my understanding, the pitiable state in which we find our Congress has deeper roots than the current cycle of political polarization. The broken appropriations and dysfunctional confirmation processes that are crippling our government’s ability to do its job do not need a massage. They need an overhaul. I would like a chief executive who has an aggressive, outside-the-box mindset and wants to change the system, not work within it. Give me the guy who took on the New York mob—because I think that’s the approach that’s needed.

In closing, let me say I don't think I'm harboring many illusions about the Mayor. I do like him personally and I respect and admire him, but I do not see him as some sort of political savior. The man is flawed. His personal life is sketchy at best. We differ on some serious issues, notably abortion. Yes, I would prefer that he had a Romney-type family and a Thompson-style stance on social issues. But I trust his ability to select judges and I appreciate his consistency and candor on issues even when we disagree. For me, these weaknesses do not come close to outweighing his strengths.

And there you have it. Be it fashionable or not, because of his proven track record in crisis management, his appetite for seemingly impossible, intractable jobs, his willingness to risk personal unpopularity to do what he believes to be right and his passionate belief in our country, I consider Rudy Giuliani the best qualified candidate to confront the unknowable challenges that face us as a nation over the next four years.

Happy New Year everyone!

While Rudy is far down my list, it's good to see a well reasonsed pro-Guiliani blog in the midst of the Fred Sea (my man Fred ... disclaimer).

I consider you one of the more well reasoned overall contributers here on the site so its good to see your stuff.

I'll vote for Rudy in the general in heart beat and think he would do well (pictures of him in drag being run in Kansas not withstanding).

I ask because I certainly don't recall it, and I assume others don't as well. If the allegations are unfounded, he's not done the best job getting that out there.

This debunking seems to be saying that the irregularities involving travel to see his mistress account for less than 1% of the total irregularities.

After his affair became public, the mayor's office in 2001 did charge several trips to the Hamptons to the Assigned Counsel Plan, which was designed to coordinate legal efforts for the poor.

But the total cost of those trips, $2,474, represents less than 1 percent of the $281,338 in travel expenses that was charged to the obscure agencies.

And another fine quote:

It's still not clear why Mr. Giuliani's office did that, or why it began prepaying his American express bills, both practices that other administrations frowned upon.

It also doesn't address the claims that Giuliani's mistress was being driven around at city expense, without the Mayor in tow.

If I'm remembering correctly, NY State Comptroller Hevesi ended up resigning recently over a scandal involving using state employees to chauffer his sweetie-pie around (said sweetie-pie being his disabled wife, rather than a mistress). I think the comparisons draw themselves.

you're nitpicking, bud.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Rudy's billing irregularities? One isn't allowed to question him because he happened to be mayor when the towers came down?

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

One isn't allowed to question him because he happened to be mayor when the towers came down?

1) He did a lot more than "happen to be mayor" on that terrible day.
2) What's more important--(a)minor billing irregularities or (b) proven leadership ability in crisis and management ability in a very difficult situation (i.e., the dysfunctional NYC of the early 1990s)?

This is no time for any voter to self-embark on a holiday from history, and insulate him/herself by focusing on side issues. Such as, billing records. We live in a dangerous world, and we need leaders that are up to the challenge of succeeding in that world. The voter who chooses to pretend that we're living instead in a different world should remember the last time we tried that. In 1993, as Bill Clinton entered office, Osama Bin Laden was just starting to rise to prominence on the world terrorism front. After eight years of Clinton's holiday-from-history, Bin Laden had metastasized into a cancer that proved to be fatal for 3,000 Americans.

It is our duty as citizens to put things in perspective. Especially when it comes to choosing an American President.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

but I suspect you know that already.

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

and...

Mayor Giuliani's "round-the-clock" security detail was not assigned without reason.

From one of my earlier comments addressing this subject: Working from a false premise ...

"Even "Perky" Katie Couric, official charter-member of the VLWC and world renown Tart, had to admit that the facts simply don't support the premise."

***

“Peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever.” – Ronald Reagan

"If I'm remembering correctly, NY State Comptroller Hevesi ended up resigning recently over a scandal involving using state employees to chauffer his sweetie-pie around (said sweetie-pie being his disabled wife, rather than a mistress). I think the comparisons draw themselves"

A State Comptroller is not the same as a Mayor. Especially a mayor who has taken down the mob and received death threats. Also it was the NYC police who decided his "sweety pie" now wife needed the protection.

So I ask you.

What was the right choice. Follow the advice of those in charge of protecting the mayor and those around him or ignore them and let the woman you love fend for herself?

And you are quoting selectively.

This debunking seems to be saying that the irregularities involving travel to see his mistress account for less than 1% of the total irregularities.

Let's note that these are your words, characterising (I would say mischaracterising) the report and not quotes.

Certainly, the report criticises the Giuliani administration for using outdated accounting practices which had already been abandoned by most other government agencies. But these accounting practices are not misappropriations of funds, which a reading of your contribution to this blog could have led someone to assume.

The point about the crtiticised travel expenses being less than 1% of the travel expenses that were charged to other agencies is pretty clear. It is that the decision to charge these travel expenses to other agencies may seem odd, but it was not done to hide the debateable expenses relating to the Mayor's household.

You can describe these accounting decisions as "irregularities" if you wish, but more than 99% of the money so spent was perfectly ordinary city expenditure about which no controversy has arisen.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You've pretty well captured everything I like (and don't) about Rudy. IMO, the best part of Rudy is that he's been through "trial by fire". And I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about the political fire generated when he governed conservatively in the liberal heartland, took on the far left establishment including the NYT and beat their brains (such as they had) out every time. I view that as good training for a Washington driven by Reid, Pelosi and the NYT.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

we live in a crazy dangerous world. We need a CIC not a preacher in chief. You have to admire Rudy's grit. There is not one candidate out there that is viable that is perfect. I don't care if he cross dressed for a comedy skit. I don't care how many tyrsts he may have had. He didn't let his private life interfere with his ability to to run NY. Unlike our previous resident of the oval office. He's promised conservative justices. He's a law and order guy and proved himself during his career as a prosecuter taking on the mafia. He's ready on day one to take on Reid and Pelosi. Rudy will stick with the WOT and will not retreat. For this reason alone he is my choice.

Just like liberals like to fashionably call Bush "dumb," Cheney "evil," and Karl Rove "the criminal mastermind behind the whole operation," it's become fashionable for online conservative pundits to attack the former mayor - "he's pro-choice!", "he backed Mario Cuomo!", "he's anti-second amendment." Yes, these mantras are as simple-minded and wrong-headed as, "Bush lied! Kids died!"

To wit:

- The mayor did not run a sanctuary city in NYC. When he took office there were nearly 2,000 murders a year. That's almost 6 people getting killed a day. When fighting a rampant crime rate, you don't send the police on raids of restaurant kitchens for illegal immigrants. You send them out to reduce felonies on the citizenry, protecting them - the very job of a police department.

- The mayor did "embrace" hard-working illegal aliens because there was an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants in NYC when Giuliani took over. The Feds only deport 2,000. Do you really kick children of illegal aliens out of school and onto the streets, unsupervised? Do you really run illegal immigrants out of jobs to, probably, collect welfare?

- Yes, he did endorse and back Mario Cuomo. Mayor Dinkins, and mayors before Giuliani, left the city in financial ruin. The only way to get the econony started, and the city out of dire financial straits, was to lower taxes citywide. The only way a mayor to do this was to get the okay of the governor, Cuomo. These tax reductions turned the economy around, brought business back to NYC, saving it.

- Rudy's supposed "war on the second amendment" was trying to get guns off the streets, out of the hands of criminals, to get the crime rate down. Again, six people getting killed a day. This had nothing to do with hunters in the South or Midwest owning guns for recreational use.

- Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Mr. Giuliani is a firm believer in following the rule of law, even though he is personally pro-life. As such, the mayor would uphold any eventual federalization when and if Roe is ever overturned.

Giuliani has personal failinings, sure. However, he also has a concrete record - not theoretical - of what he's accomplished. And it's been outstanding and miraculous. That's why Rudy Giuliani has my support and gratitude for being a politician who actually does good instead of promising it.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

about Rudy supporting Cuomo because he wanted tax cuts is absurd. How would you respond to the following?:

On why Rudy endorsed Mario Cuomo (D) over George Pataki (R) in '94: "[Pataki] has plans to reduce taxes that are so ambitious and so inconsistent with the performance of the economy of the state. It would be a disaster.

Something doesn't add up.

Also, I think your characterization of Republicans/conservatives that oppose Rudy as being equivalent to the MoveOn and Code Pink crowd is outrageous. I'm not one for bumper sticker politics, but being pro-life is a deeply held conviction for many people and not a slogan as you seem to suggest.

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

If you think the Second Amendment exists so that people can own guns for recreational purposes, you (and Rudy) are sadly mistaken. I certainly don't want a president who will nominate judges with a recreational view of the Second Amendment.

- Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Mr. Giuliani is a firm believer in following the rule of law, even though he is personally pro-life. As such, the mayor would uphold any eventual federalization when and if Roe is ever overturned.

Hey, I'm a big Rudy fan but this is not a good description of his record. Rudy may or may not be "personally pro-life" in terms of his view of the ethics of abortion, but that's basically irrelevant. Rudy in the past was both pro-choice and pro-Roe. He remains pro-choice but has basically moved to an agnostic view of Roe and a functionally anti-Roe stance by his embrace of constitutionalist judges. In either sense, I don't believe he has ever suggested that he was pro-choice primarily because he saw his hands as being tied by Roe.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

has an article by Ramesh Ponnuru titled "'Electable,' They Say" about Giuliani's alleged electability. Check it out...Ponnuru makes an excellent case against Giuliani. He notes Giuliani's weakness in swing states (in conflict with conventional wisdom that he would be strong in such states), "vote leakage" to 3rd party(ies) and loss of social conservatives, and character issues with stories such as his adultery/divorce and the Kerik controversy.

Your writeup is a good one, and in recent weeks, I have come to the conclusion that I might even be able to (quite reluctantly) vote for him, but I may not be able to vote for Huckabee - his negatives have exceeded Giuliani's, in my mind.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

More taxes. More government oversight in our lives. A dove-ish foreign policy. Sympathy for convicted felons. The ONLY thing separating him from being a Democrat is being pro-life.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

A "sanctuary city", such as New York City, has passed laws that prevent city officials, such as members of the police department, from cooperating with federal agents involved with immigration law enforcement. No one asked Giulani to send the NYPD on immigration raids. However, is it too much to ask a former Federal prosecutor to repeal laws that hindered his successors in the successful execution of their jobs?

The INS back then routinely ignored reports of illegal aliens, aside from serious criminals. Cities and states could report all the illegals they could find, and the INS would just say "Thank you very much" and ignore it if they were in a good mood, or otherwise tell the caller to stop wasting their time.

Calling New York a "sanctuary city" is a stretch; they weren't doing anything that impeded the INS or reduced the number of illegals deported. All they did was stop bothering to make reports that the INS would ignore, and they announced that policy publicly.

"Being pro-life is a deeply held conviction for many people and not a slogan as you seem to suggest."

The wacko Left have deeply held convictions that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 to have an excuse to: a) create a Big Brother police state and b) go to war with Iraq, to end the war his father started and for oil. They sincerely believe this as you sincerely believe, as do I, that abortion is evil. I wasn't comparing SoCons with Code Pink. I was just pointing out that single-issue voters need more issues.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

between a staunchly pro-life voter having to SUPPORT a candidate such as Rudy and someone who hates the war being OPPOSED to Bush & Co. For social conservatives, there is plenty about Rudy not to like and since I don't think he is best on $'s or security, then there is no reason to compromise firmly held convictions. I think it is great that he was successful in turning NY City into a more livable place, but that qualifies him for AG at best.

And yes, you were comparing SoCons to the likes of Code Pink and you did it yet again in your response by calling both groups "single-issue voters" who "need more issues".

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

Good crisis management involves making the right decisions *before* the crisis occurs. Rudy Giuliani's personal decision to place the NYC emergency response center in the World Trade Center complex after the *first* WTC attack is inexcusable. It's worse than not using the New Orleans school bus fleet in hurricane evacuation planning. No way should this irresponsible man be allowed within 3 states of the White House.

By that standard, none of the candidates running for President should be "allowed within 3 states of the White House".

Thompson, demigod of the conservative pantheon, voted for McCain-Feingold. Definitely shouldn't be allowed within three states of the White House. (Well, okay, maybe two states =)

McCain--well, he's McCain. That's worth four states in my book!

Romney's notable flip-flop on abortion--three states.

We won't even get into the Democrats (and yes, I do include Huckabee in that demographic).

Remember, there are many different disasters that could befall NYC. The WTC site (not in the Twin Towers but an adjoining building) was based on studies and surveys that concluded that the site's access to mass transit, high security and vantage point were optimal.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

"Rudy Giuliani's personal decision to place the NYC emergency response center in the World Trade Center complex after the *first* WTC attack is inexcusable."

There were and are several NYC Emergency Response Centers, not just one. Also one would expect that the security at the WTC was beefed up after the first attack. Note no bomb destroyed the building. It was passenger jets full of people crashed into the buildings.

This is the dumbest of arguments against Rudy Giuliani.

Placing NYC's emergency response command center in the WTC complex (not in the Twin Towers but in a nearby building) actually makes MUCH more sense than placing it in an alternative site in Brooklyn. Why? For one thing, the East River crossings from City Hall to Brooklyn might be inaccessible or impassable due to traffic in the event of an emergency. Furthermore, by placing the command center in the WTC complex, Rudy was exactly where he needed to be on 911 -- right where the crisis was occurring. Especially in a crisis its better for a leader to see the situation with his own eyes.

Nom De Plume, you are an ignorant 911 Truther (or at best Truther sympathizer) and I have nothing but contempt for you and your conspiracy minded ilk.

Yes, that is the technical definition of "sanctuary city." I was using the more umbrella term, as Romeny used (accusingly) in the...which debate is that? My point is Giuliani wasn't like Huckabee as Governor in actively aiding illegal immigrants, i.e. the college scholarships, as some bloggers and pundits like to paint the former mayor. There was very good economic and public safety reason he opted to look the other way if an illegal alien was working and staying out of trouble. Arkansas, on the other hand, was a cakewalk to govern, thus making Huckabee even more of a bad Presidental choice.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

You've been here over 5 weeks - surely you've noticed the "Reply To This" link below each discussion thread entry. It is your friend - use it!


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

)

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

My reason for not using Reply To This is I don't like scrolling back through to read new comments. I always look at the end, so I just leave new comments myself. Anyway, so who do you like? Who is your horse in this race?

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

Fred by bs

and if you note my comment a ways up the chain, I've decided that Giuliani isn't as verboten as I once did - relative to Huckabee, he's gained ground and risen above my "I ain't votin' for him" threshold, with the Huckster dropping below it. They're both at the bottom of the list, though.

And I don't necessarily disagree with you on the threading. That's one thing that really needs work in RedState 3.0. If only it was available via an NNTP feed of some sort...then one could select their own client for navigating postings/comments. Oh well - guess that train's left the station.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

that Huckabee's plan for scholarships (which was never enacted) made good economic sense. I don't think anyone can say that people with a college education, as a group, make more money and therefore pay more taxes than those who don't have a degree. I am sure that if you penciled it out, that you could make the case for Huckabee's plan from a financial perspective. You are not going to win the illegal immigration argument with this line of thinking. Sorry.

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

Arkansas has never been almost overtaken by crime and a financial crisis. Huckabee could've sealed off illegal immigration if he wanted to. He had far less illegal aliens in the entire state than Giuliani had in a city. He had no reason not to do this, but he didn't, unlike Giuliani who had good reason not to crack down on illegal immigration.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

on immigration, I am still waiting to hear your response to Rudy's quote that he supported Cuomo not because he was for tax cuts, but against them.

My point about Huckabee vs. Rudy on illegal immigration is that once your have abandoned the principle (opposition to illegal immigration), no amount of spinning will allow you to claim the moral high ground. I support McCain, who obviously has some less than ideal positions on this issue. Since I support McCain, I am not going to beat my politics opponents over the head with the illegal immigration issue because that would be STUPID.

It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support.
- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

You've just outed yourself as anti-Giuliani, so I guess this won't be a fair-minded discussion anymore.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

for being anti-Giuliani. I've just listed some of them. With which of the reasons that I listed do you disagree?

It's obvious that you've gravitated towards anti-Giuliani articles, as I tend to "listen" to more pro-Rudy write-ups. I think my Cuomo theory is correct, as you think your assumption is correct. I can tell you that the NYPD and FDNY set up command posts in and around the second tower, because there was no reason to think it was going to be hit. They, along with Giuliani and his staff, wanted to be right there to coordinate the rescue and for clearer communications. You are asking people to somehow divine that second tower would fall, in the midst of the first tower's tragedy.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

From the June 14, 1998 edition of the New York Times:

" Mayor Defends Plan to Build Crisis Center"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2D7173DF937A25755C0A...

The outpost in question (the Emergency Operations Center, or EOC) was supposed to be "a secure control center where emergency operations could be directed in case of a disaster." It occupied 46,000 square feet in building 7 of the WTC complex. This is completely separate from the ad-hoc emergency response centers set up on 9-11 in building 2. The EOC was evacuated after the second plane strike on the WTC due to fear that another hijacked plane would strike again. From that point on, EOC functions were degraded. Not until the early afternoon was a temporary EOC reestablished at the Police Academy.

Again, placing the key emergency response center for New York City within shouting distance of a known terrorist target was an act of folly, and was recognized as folly when funding for the center was debated in 1998. This folly can be laid directly at the feet of Rudy Giuliani.

within shouting distance of a known terrorist target.

Where did you want him to put it the U.N. basement ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

There are/were a few very obvious terrorist targets (in no particular order):
- WTC
- Empire State Building
- Times Square
- Penn Station
- United Nations
- Statue of Liberty[*]
- Wall St.

[*] Technically, that's in NJ.

Sure, terrorists could in theory strike anywhere, but to put the main response center right next to one of the most obvious targets is foolish.

Jerry Hauer, NYC Director of Emergency Response, and Howard Safir, Police Chief, both recommended against the WTC location in favor of a Brooklyn location, and Giuliani overruled them.

It was just a bad decision, and a lot of Giuliani's critics said so at the time it was made.

Also, the WTC is not far enough from City Hall -- which is the natural secondary main response center, should anything happen to the first one.

This is part of the mythology pushed by unions linked to the Democratic party, notably the IAFF and their "Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend" video. The fact that Democrats such as them and Woodyweasel are so determined to smear Giuliani with this misinformation is an argument in Rudy's favor.

In fact Emergency Response Director Jerry Hauer did recommend the WTC location, both publicly and in meetings. It was only after 9/11 that he claimed with no corroboration that he opposed it. This was after a falling out with Giuliani and he was backing Mark Green for mayor. I don't like Bloomberg, but anybody that would back Mark Green over him is obviously someone who lets his grudge outweigh his common sense.

“I was in the room when Jerry Hauer made the recommendation, after the evaluation of all the sites, that the place that was the best to locate the facility was on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, a building that housed numerous law enforcement agencies,” Mr. Lhota said in a phone interview. “I remember that meeting as clear as can be. That meeting included numerous commissioners, and the mayor himself.”

NY Times

I haven't looked up Safir personally, but the Police Dept's main complaint was that they should be the lead agency in an emergency rather than the Office of Emergency Response. That's standard bureaucratic turf war stuff.

Sure, terrorists could in theory strike anywhere, but to put the main response center right next to one of the most obvious targets is foolish.

True the WTC placement didn't foresee an airliner kamikaze attack, but what we know in hindsight wasn't anticipated by other government officials responsible for security any more than Giuliani. The U.S. Dept. of Defense, CIA, and Secret Service all considered the WTC a safe place to locate back then. NY Magazine: The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

Also, the WTC is not far enough from City Hall

Having it close enough to City Hall and other city agencies for personnel to get there quickly was on objective in the location decision:

Asked about the center’s location in the World Trade Center, in a building across the street from the site of the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people, Mr. Hauer, who is director of the city’s Office of Emergency Management, said the location was chosen after a study of some 50 alternative sites. The complex now has tight security and is close to the Mayor’s office, the Police and Fire Departments and the headquarters of other high city officials, he said, adding that in the event of an emergency, personnel would want to reach the center on foot.

Giuliani made the very best of a very bad situation, with some "necessary evils" to get the greater good accomplished. Mike Huckabee - as an example only, I know you are a McCain supporter - had a far easier time as governor of a Southeastern state, and didn't accomplish a fraction of what the mayor did.

As for McCain: his stance on Iraq and general hawkishness doesn't offset wanting to close Gitmo, opposing the Bush cuts, and the amnesty bill.

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

...and just sighing and not cursing! :)

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

We are a model of respectful disagreement. Why can't there be more of this???

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Why can't we all just get along?

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Leon, I think we have some anger issues here. Repeat after me: "I love everyone...I love everyone...I love everyone..."

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

...you respond to dead people?

;)

Hey Democrats even know how to get them to vote

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Let me hasten to add that I have no, absolutely no illusions that my opinion on the next POTUS will move mountains...or hills...or pebbles on this site.

But, AE makes some good points here.

We need a President who will intimidate the next Bin Laden or Quadaffi. That's Rudy.

The USA is the strongest of all the free nations, in a world that is---and will continue to be---threatening. We need someone who can lead our people, and also convince the most capable of the free world's nations to side with us. That calls for someone with experience, who's earned respect worldwide. Of all the candidates in the GOP primaries, Giuliani fits that bill the best.

While I am awed by Senator McCain's heroism and grit, he's too flaky and hard to read to be a good President. His policy paths are so unpredictable that it's nearly impossible to divine his intent. If you can't anticipate what your boss's wishes would be, you find yourself sitting around, waiting for the boss to finally decide what policy stance he wants to follow on this particular day, with this particular issue. That disempowers your staff and kills initiative. And, that is a prescription for mediocrity.

Sometimes McCain seems more comfortable as a conservative (e.g., a strong pro-life stance), sometimes as a progressive (e.g., BCRA, fighting the Bush tax cuts)...but always as a maverick, who keeps everyone guessing. Well, it's one thing to be a maverick. It's another thing to rally a nation---and, in fact, the free world---behind one comprehensible vision of/direction for governing. IMO McCain falls way short here.

I concur with AE. Here's one more vote for Giuliani.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I try not to prognosticate as my crystal ball is blurry. Perhaps you have a Ouja board?

when I see one and I can't see Rudy. Thanks for telling me why.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

save it for me, will ya?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

But I expect we'll be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Leon before the end.

...

...

...

I'm scared to finish that thought...so I won't. GO 'SKINS!

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

after McCain. I think he did a great job as Mayor of New York fighting heavily entrenched liberal interests. In the end, however, I'm just not sure that he would appoint the strict constructionist judges he claims. Also, I don't like the prospect of a third party challenge from social conservatives. His baggage is a little heavy. But he's definetly my second choice and would get my vote in a New York minute.

I do not support Mayor Giuliani, but I do support clearly reasoned endorsements. Thanks AcademicElephant.

I will question one assumption. You wrote that Giuliani "took a beating in December over allegations (since proven unfounded) that he abused City funds to pursue his extra-curricular love life." I don't think it was concern over the propriety of the funding that hurt Rudy. More damaging was the awakening of many outside NYC that the Mayor committed adultery. Fox news and others usually glossed over this fact with phrases like "marital difficulties".

With the support of Fox News, Mayor Giuliani will probably be the nominee.

The Mayor is not my number one choice for POTUS, but if he is the nomineee I could, and will, vote for him. As mentioned by others, good to see a reasoned, well-presented pro-Giuliani blog.

You make some excellent points. Recommended.

I believe its time to get off the fence, I like the ideas Fred is expressing, but I am not inclined to put him at number one solely because his positions are the right ones. He also has to have that intangible quality that makes me want to follow his lead. And yes, he has to be able to make his case to the American people who are not as conservative as I, or he will not be able to defeat the opposition. Rudy has those qualities and I am willing to give him a break on his personal failings as I don't believe politicians are required to be "more pure than the driven snow" in the manner that they stand up for the United States. In fact, I don't think any politician rises to the level of moral role model, this is asking too much of the vast majority of their species.

I supported Bush even though I knew he was wrong about immigration. I believe Rudy will support a stronger border position than Bush, and I am not concerned that he will grab our guns. He did a job in New York that we could only pray for in San Francisco and crime is right up there with the other domestic issues we need leadership on. I would like to see Fred on the ticket, as the VP. Like you AE, I agree that Rudy was the leader of the hour on 9/11 and would be so again should another attack or a new stage of the global war on terror occur.

Does anyone remember what kind of shape NYC was in when Rudy took over? By every measure, his tenure as mayor was over the top successful.

Compare that to McCain, for example. He has been a Congress critter for what, about 100 years? Hasn't he been part of the problem?

Welcome to the Rudy Giuliani for President supporters team. Congrats on bucking the CW.

I'm a diehard Rudy guy, but would support Fred or Mitt, as well, if they prevail.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

You write--
His failure to do a Romney-style flip-flop on social issues has earned him the undying enmity of many on the right.

First, there is reason to believe that Giuliani's 1990's position on abortion represented a flip relative to what he suggested in the 1980s. According to National REview, "Giuliani once opposed Roe himself, according to press reports when he first ran for mayor in 1989." http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzRlNjgyM2I3YTFjYTg5NjVmMTkxN...

Having grown up in the NYC area, I recall him being suggested as a pro-life opponent of Moynihan in the 1988 Senate match.

Second Giuliani HAS flip-flopped on abortion since the 1990s. To wit,

1. Giuliani favored taxpayer, federal funding of abortion.
2. Giuliani opposed protecting unborn children againt partial-birth abortion.
3. In news interviews, he repeatedly referred to the issue simply as a "choice" issue.
4. He emphatically supported the Roe v. Wade decision.

In sum, you couldn't put a Planned-Parenthood or NARAL pledge in front of him that he wouldn't sign.

Now he no longer opposes the Hyde Amendment, no longer opposes the partial-birth-abortion ban, and suggests agnosticism on the Roe decision--suggesting he would be happy if the judges he appointed should overturn the decision.

Supposing that Romney and Giuliani both "pandered" to people like me. If so, I would prefer someone who had pandered all the way rather than someone who seemingly reserves the right to pander simultaneously to the enemies of the unborn child.

In any case, it is not true that Romney has flip-flopped while Giuliani has remained honorably steadfast in an undying devotion to taxpayer-subsidized, legalized abortion.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Say, Fred Thompson miraculously wins the White House. What do pro-lifers expect him to do differently than Giuliani? The President can't (of course) ban abortions. Any Republican elected can only agressively push adoption (like Giuliani did in NYC) and elect justices that view Roe for what it is - seven jurists penciling "the right to privacy" into the Constitution. Giuliani being friends with Ted Olsen and having worked with Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito speaks to who he would elect to the High Court. What do pro-lifers expect anyone-but-Giuliani to do differently?

thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com

I particularly liked:

Given his record in New York, I expect he would try to shake things up at State, Defense and Justice. He would probably have a pretty tumultuous relationship with Congress. But in all these cases, I think that’s a good thing. The status quo in any of those three major departments is simply unacceptable, as is any candidate who thinks it is.

And I would add to your list the CIA. It is essential that this department is brought into line by a heavyweight with managerial and legislative experience as well as ideological commitment. My preference for the role is Dick Cheney.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

An excellent point Q. Let's make it a blanket re-assessment of the domestic and international IC.

cleaned that hellhole up.....he was lambasted on a daily basis for being cruel....didn't matter to him he just kept on fixing the problems.

I also remember him prosecuting the mobsters and that man showed no fear.

Of course my first choice is Fred but if Rudy is the man than I am behind him as well. He far and away exceeds anything the Democrats are putting out there.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

For some that would be quite an endorsement...

Great job, why is it the smartest most practical folks are supporting Rudy G?

Many of the holier than thou's will simply omit the factual evidence that of all the candidates it is Rudy that has in reality done more for social causes than any other candidate, he was hell bent on cleaning up one of America's largest cities and he did quite a job.

Compare that to Huckabee who constantly has to lie about his management of a state of only 2,673,400 in 2000 compared to NYC's 8,008,278 at that time.

As the mayor of that many people how can anyone attempt to compare the executive experience at any level...

Arkansas, Total number of firms, 2002 - 209,010
New York City, Total number of firms, 1997*, 649,717 (*note a five year spread in the numbers for comparison)

Arkansas, Wholesale trade sales, 2002 - 34,470,795
New York City, Wholesale trade sales, 1997 ($1000), 182,107,059 (all of NY State, 319,697,562)

OK so no comparison there, but what about trusting him to appoint the right judges? Rudy's not getting in front of every camera he can find so he can lie about his record or asking innocent questions about if Mormons think Jesus and the devil are brothers, the "Christian Leader" is, so really who is more deserving of trust? The man who has a record of fighting crime and for family values through his stands in NYC or the the latest liar from Hope Arkansas?

Gee in re-reading this it sounds like I don't like Huckabee, the choice of many here but hey the facts speak for themselves.

Rudy rocks and at the end of the day ultimately the choice does come down to who will fight for us, as a party and country, and who keep our nation safe, to me there is only one choice, Rudy Giuliani, "he fights".

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I would not presume to speak for Sec Rumsfeld, so you should take this as my opinion and my opinion alone. :)

But I do agree that "He fights" is a pretty strong reason to support Rudy.

I think we have all understood that the opinions you express are your own, unless otherwise and very clearly stated.

I presume that if DR had made an endorsement it would have been widely publicised, and that you would have referred to it in your comment above anyway.

But there is a separate question here (and one I do not expect you to answer). Does DR intend to issue an endorsement? It is an interesting question, and might indeed carry much weight.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I am solid on Rudy because he can win and i believe the terrorist threat to the West is greater than most think it is and Rudy maybe the only one who gets that.

But he's going to start coming off like Tancredo if he hits the terrorism button everytime he's in front of the camera.

The US wants low taxes, immigration solved, job security and better education right now; that's what will win for Rudy or lose it for him if he neglects it.

Thanks for the pro-Giuliani post. I have been surprised how few there have been. He and Thompson are tied for second place for me. His fading national support has been really surprising to me.

My main reason for liking Giuliani is because I really believe he would do everything possible to keep America safe from terrorism. On this issue, he is the antithesis of all of the Democratic candidates.

My main hesitation regarding Giuliani is the skeletons in his closet. I just hate conceding the character issue if the race comes down to Rudy and Hillary.

You've helped me decide that he's number three on my list. Romney moves to 4th because of his attack ads and because Giuliani has exhibited stronger leadership. If national security were the sole for issue for me, I would probably have Giuliani higher.

At a minimum I expected Raphael's "The Vision of a Knight".

Several additional points;
- Despite Bloomberg trying to say Rudy's post 9-11 role is overestimated, he will render such viewpoints as oblique self-aggrandizement.

- Despite the obvious shortcomings he can actually win against the other party; a fairly important point lost in all the recent political self immolation and Hugh Hewit veneration

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

...he would be one that would be least likely to compromise and give in to liberal Democrats on things taxes, spending, health care, and education. I think he is as tough as anyone on foreign policy, and we would continue to be extemely aggressive on the GWoT and Iraq. Unlike some socons around here, I do trust that he will appoint strict constructionist judges.

That being said, I think his electability is extemely overstated, and he could cause a third party socon run - perhaps a constitution party candidate.

Bottom line: Rudy isn't my top guy, but I'd gladly vote for him. I'll take Rudy in a heartbeat over John McCain and Mike Huckabee - that's for sure.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I will easily vote for him over any of the democraps - I don't want 4 years of liberals and marxists destroying the country.

I am concerned about things a president can and cannot do - like appoint judges that can spend a lifetime making America work or not.

1. He gets way too much credit for the drop in crime in NYC than is appropriate. The crime rate in NYC started dropping a couple of years prior to his first term. That drop was mirrored by a similar drop in other major cities. Those two facts destroy any claim Rudy can have to being the architect of NYC's lower crime rate. There is simply no statistically significant cause-and-effect there.

2. Rudy has never been able to handle disagreement well. If you disagreed with him, you were evil. Period. (Note: those in the "anyone who disagrees with me is a traitor" camp will disagree here. Obviously. You will love Rudy. Unless you disagree with him. Then YOU will be the traitor.) There was simply no such thing as a reasonable disagreement with him. He could get away with that in the strong mayor system NYC had, but that approach in Washington would be bad. We need people who can work across the aisle, and Rudy has not shown any aptitude or willingness to do so.

3. Rudy has demonstrated a penchant for secretiveness that should be troubling. He was very comfortable with violating NY law (regarding open meetings, open records and the like) over and over if following those laws was inconvenient. (He almost always lost in the end.) If you like knowing what your government is up to, Rudy is NOT your man.

I agree that some of the Rudy criticism is unfair. The "sanctuary city" business is absurd. His positions on abortion and gun control were of neccessity. (Romney, of all people, should understand taking liberal positions to get elected in a liberal jurisdiction. And he should also understand that there are limits to the executive's authority.) He shrunk NYC government, which was badly needed. But know what you are getting with this guy: a secretive, hostile, mean-spirited leader that would likely take us into 4 or 8 years of bitter fighting with Republicans AND Democrats.

Is that really your cup of tea?

Gar

You wrote: "[Rudy] gets way too much credit for the drop in crime in NYC than is appropriate. The crime rate in NYC started dropping a couple of years prior to his first term. That drop was mirrored by a similar drop in other major cities. Those two facts destroy any claim Rudy can have to being the architect of NYC's lower crime rate. There is simply no statistically significant cause-and-effect there"

On two points you are on point. Overall, crime dropped in major cities throughout the US during the 1990s. This is true. It is also true that crime rates began falling before Rudy became mayor. These point to some systematic cause for the drop in crime rates (some have suggested abortion was a key factor since many women who would have given birth to future criminals aborted their children instead. others have suggested the lower lead levels in the nation's water supply lead to fewer children suffering neurological impairments that would otherwise have predisposed them to antisocial behavior and crime... personally I think the fact that more criminals were locked up for longer periods of time throughout the country is the most robust systematic explanation).

However, if you look at the graph on the NY Times website which is cited in the articles you probably read, NYC experienced a more dramatic drop in crime than other major cities, and the drop in NYC's crime rates continued even after crime rates in other major cities started going up in the past 5 or so years. This suggests that not NYC's crime rates fell not only because of nationwide systematic causes but also because of factors unique to NYC. I would argue that Rudy's policies helped produce better police practices and city culture that was generally less conducive to criminal activities.

So while I agree with the facts you point out, I disagree with you conclusion.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Glad you finally showed up! Rudy's the most electable guy in the general election...

I think Rudy's charisma will ultimately make him president. I would prefer Fred, but as far as politicians go, Rudy is a very engaged, intelligent guy, who will fight hard on national security and taxes and will appoint conservative Justices and judges. Not sure about immigration, but he at least talks the talk now. Much more here www.patriotroom.com/?p=15.

Good, well-reasoned blog. If Rudy ultimately was our nominee, I would have no problems pulling the lever for him.

Having said that, I still shy away from Rudy in the primaries for three probably unimportant reasons.

First, Rudy is a lifelong government worker. I can't help but wonder about a man who has been working in government for forty years (with a mere four year break in private law practice). How small government could such a man be, at the end of the day? Conservatism has at its core a deep suspicion and distrust of the government; does Rudy share that suspicion, or does he ultimately believe that the solutions come from the state?

Second, I'm not sure I see how Rudy squares his pro-choice position with his professed Catholic faith. I'm neither pro-life nor Catholic, but missives like this one from someone who is both pro-life and Catholic are thought-provoking. Because it's about principles. Politicians are slippery eels to begin with, but in this time of civilizational conflict, I would like someone with some bedrock principles he would not compromise. I just can't see how Rudy can have it both ways; either renounce Catholicism (heck, hundreds of millions of Protestants have...) or adhere to the teachings of the church you profess. I just can't see how he can have it both ways, and the fact that he can worries me. What other principles can he finesse away in his own mind? Perhaps we'll get a redux of Compassionate Conservatism?

Third... he just wants it too much. Perhaps it's because they're both New Yorkers (well, one a transplanted New Yorker), but Hillary and Rudy both have that slightly frightening intensity about them as they reach for the reins of power. He doesn't give me the "let me check to make sure my wallet's still there" feeling that Romney gives me, but neither does he seem like a man who really doesn't need the job, but feels compelled to serve in this time of need. Rather, he strikes me as a man who sees a lifelong ambition within reach and wants it very, oh so very, badly. That scares me just a little bit.

As I've said, if Rudy is our nominee, I would have no hesitation voting for him, and working on the campaign to defeat whatever candidate the Dems put forth. But during the primary season, he cannot be the man.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Rudy reminds me of Reagan. I voted for Reagan in 1980 because of Iran. Like Reagan, Rudy is someone that will not let Iran take advantage of us.

Rudy also impresses me with his record of effectiveness. I thought NYC was hopelessly broken so I am very impressed with how it has improved under Rudy.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service