...In which I ask the question: "Why Rudy?"
By Bert M cordoneq... Posted in Archived — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
America's Mayor, as he is fondly referred to, is a republican. On Sept. 11th, Rudy won much acclaim for his heroic leadership; he cemented himself in the American political psyche. But how did he do this? The better question is, why is Rudy a Republican? And the best question yet: why are some republicans coalescing around him, propelling him to the republican nomination?
"I want public funding for abortions." - Rudy Giuliani
Many people point to Rudy's liberal social views as reasons he shouldn't be in the republican party. I won't bother listing out his various transgression - I don't want to blow my word count all at once. While Mitt Romney sees his children doing a great service to this country by helping his campaign, Rudy can't even get his children to endorse his candidacy. If the people who know Rudy won't endorse him, why should we?
"Illegal immigration is not a crime."
While Rudy may aspire to a bilingual America, I do not. Nor do many republicans or many democrats for that matter. We all know Rudy is soft on illegal immigration. Is this something we as republicans can look past? I hope not.
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
We supposedly live in the land of the free. Is this who we want leading the free world? Someone who doesn't even understand the concept of freedom? Has the republican party really become the party of the southern democrats during the cvil rights movement? A party that does not understand the concept of freedom? Martin Luther King was a republican because this party was founded in freedom and for freedom. Not, as Rudy would have it, for fascism and the expansion of the state. Check out his record in NY for more on that.
Besides not understanding freedom, he seems to have forgotten to read the second amendment, or perhaps the whole constitution. He has no respect for gun rights, a mainstay of the republican party. Are we republicans willing to elect another president who has no respect for gun rights and no understanding of the role of the president under the constitution?
I am so befuddled as to why so many republicans look to Rudy as their savior. Is it really about security? Are people so worried about Islamofascism that they think electing another RINO will put an end to the crecent terror? Are people so taken by his performance on 9/11 that they think he will vanquish Islamfascism? Please. Anyways, what did he do on 9/11 that anyone else wouldn't have done? Riddle me that, o ye Rudy-lovers.
Why is Rudy a republican? I'm still not sure. Maybe you can enlighten me.
I've been wondering the same thing.
I do believe terrorism to be the question of the day. And how we mean to combat it. I want the president to use every option at his or her disposal to fight and kill the terrorists and protect America and her allies.
But, I must also ask myself, does terrorism trump all else? This is where I have to back up a little and weigh the issues.
Terrorism and/or national security is the pen-ultimate issue of 2008. But after that issue, what follows? Supreme Court nominees, taxes, abortion, gun rights, property rights, and on down the list.
It isn't enough, for me, to simply say, Rudy will protect us. Nominate him. Now, if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election, he is still better than any of the democrats.
But, for now, that isn't enough.
I want more - I want to expect more - from my president. If I know Rudy doesn't agree with me on most of the issues I hold dear, then why would I vote for him?
Has the GOP fallen so far, that the only candidate that is "electable" is a liberal Republican? Is this the future of the party?
R.J.
*pant* can beat Shrillarypantsthighstalin.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and it all comes down to effectiveness. Ideology really means nothing if you cannot implement a platform. Thompson agrees with me on many issues but he has never run anything and as the old saying goes, the Presidency is not an entry level position.
While he is socially liberal, he is fiscally conservative, tough on crime, and most importantly to me, he has a history of being effective. He lowered taxes, made government smaller, and made the city safer. You can try and pick apart his record all you like, and one reason, is that he has a record. Still, no one with any reason can say anything but that he was an effective prosecutor and an effective mayor. Fred was a really good lawyer, and there are lots of those and most should not be president.
While he is socially liberally, his socially liberal positions are not going to be in any way shape or form a major part of his Presidency. He has produced a plan that will stem the flow of illegal immigration, and it draws on many of his principles from fighting crime in New York, like Compstat. You can choose whether or not you believe him, however one thing is certain, he has a history of being effective, so if he makes stemming illegal immigration a priority you have confidence he will be effective. How does that logic hold for Thompson?
Effectiveness is ultimately the reason I am voting for Rudy. No one has a greater history of being effective than Rudy and that trumps all.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I forgot this. If Rudy isn't conservative, then why do all the liberal groups hate him. He is hated by the ACLU, the New York times, Moveon.org, the unions. Think about every single liberal group and see how they feel about him, short of Planned Parenthood. They all hate him, because in their eyes he put into place principles that were abhorrent to them, and what principles are abhorrent to them, Conservative principles.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The left hates many things , and many different philosophies, merely earning the hatred of the left is not enough to make one a Conservative.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
and if that were the only reason, that might be a stronger argument. Again, why did the New York Times, the ACLU, and all of the Unions become Rudy's enemies when he governed in New York. It was because he implemented, something Fred has never done, policies they disagreed with. What kinds of policies did they disagree with, they were Conservative Policies. This isn't merely about who hates him, though the New York times, the ACLU, and the Unions doesn't really hate too many liberals and the ones they do they hate because they aren't liberal enough. If someone gets in the crosshairs of all three of those groups, and Rudy was his entire mayoral term, it is because they have effectively implement policies those groups hated, and those policies those groups hate are Conservative policies.
He isn't just merely talk like Thompson. He has a track record as a Conservative: tough on crime, lower taxes, smaller government, these are all things he implemented while he was in office. What has Fred implemented. Absolutely nothing. It is one thing to talk about principles and quite another to implement what you believe in. Fred has done a lot of talking and Rudy has done a lot of implementing.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
in which is a common device that I know Erick has used on several occasions. It seemed like interesting word play the first time I saw it used, but it seems overdone at least to me now. What is the background on the in which word play?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
for government work on the following issues:
-GWOT
-national security
-completing the mission in Iraq
-lower taxes
-fighting crime
-resisting welfarism
-promoting free enterprise.
-judicial appointments
-sticking it to Democrats
-getting people to vote for him
Given the manifest failure of the second GWB admmistration to engage and win political battles, the last two factors are particularly appealing.
we are living in the age of terror and that should be the only issue that matters, and it is to me. I don't much care right now what someone will do on abortion because if we don't win the GWOT we have nothing else.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
While WoT is definitely very important, what good is making progress in the war if we don't have a culture of come home to (improper grammar, I know)? We need both sides of the issue.
what good is making progress in the war if we don't have a culture [to] come home to?
So what's your answer to your own question. If you don't get your way this election on [pick your most important political dispute with fellow Americans], do you still consider it important for America to win the war?
I want my country to win the war no matter who is President, Democrat or Republican, no matter what happens with Social Security reform, abortion, capital gains taxes, gay marriage, tort reform, school choice, etc.
I want us to win the war regardless of the victor in the next election. My statement only was intended for those who say that nothing else but the war is important. More power to you or whoever thinks that, but I disagree.
Man, I want us to win whether Fred, Rudy, or Hillary (gag) is the next president, but I still have to vote on who is best on everything, not just one issue, important as it may be.
I agree with you that people should take into account domestic issues in deciding who to support for President. If I can get a President who will win the war and also set immigration policy to my liking, that's better than a President who will win the war and do the opposite of what I want on immigration.
I asked the question because I wasn't sure if your "what good is making progress in the war if ..." was just a badly crafted rhetorical question, or actually implied winning the war might not be worthwhile. I thought it more likely you intended the more reasonable meaning, but there actually are a few people (fortunately very few here) who have said defeating America's enemies in war is less important than defeating fellow Americans in some domestic political dispute. Thanks for confirming you're not one of them.
What even qualifies as winning the war? Does anyone know? Will we be perpetually at war until TPTB decide otherwise? Does the war end when every muslim is killed? Before you ask yourself who you're voting for president, you should figure this out.
To me, the GWOT is really not a war. How do you go to war against a tactic? How about the global war on phalanxes? Or urban warfare? You've got to be kidding me. Yes, we have a definitive enemy but this GWOT bs is just plain aggravating rhetoric.
Come on people. Analyze. Do some critical thinking.
It was the Iraq-Kuwait war. Yet, despite the wromg name, Kuwait was liberated.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
this GWOT bs is just plain aggravating rhetoric. Come on people. Analyze. Do some critical thinking.
I regularly stop by dkos or DU for some amusement, but thanks to you I don't need to tonight.
Where he compares being a victim of terrorism with falling off a ladder or getting in a car accident. Maybe that will be in the next post.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Haha, you guys are funny. We are fighting an culpable enemy, not terrorism. Don't be ridiculous.
I love how if you don't toe the line on the "GWOT" set by the Bush administration you're labeled a liberal. Why don't you debate the merits (or lack thereof) of my point instead of labeling me something that I am not.
Anyways, what defines victory in this "GWOT"? When terrorism is no longer used? When? I want some benchmarks. Or at the very least, some intelligent commentary. Perhaps you lack the intellectual capacity to do such things.
I'm still not clear on how we are supposed to defeat the desert (in Desert Storm) or a body of water (Gulf War) or the entire world (WWI & WWII) though.... maybe you can help me out with this...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Again, hahahaha. You're a riot.
Gulf war referred to location, not purpose. If you're going to debunk my point, please try to do it more effectively than a 5th grader would.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
against the man that betrayed the USSR
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
indict suspects after attacks, bomb night watchmen at empty training areas and go on charge of the light brigade manhunts for impotent cave dwellers.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I agree with you on this. What this war has turned into is a law-enforcement activity, a policing engagement. We either need to fight them or come home. However, I do think we need a revamping of our foreign policy. I don't believe we were attacked on 9/11 for "our freedoms".
reduce the war to arresting UBL and storing more band-aids for first responders.
We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq busy killing the al Qaida forces that actually threaten us, who would otherwise be freed up to attack Los Angeles rather then prevent us from gaining a foothold with the moderates that hate them in their own backyard. We are fighting them man. We have killed thousands without warrants!
Moreover, it is getting too numerous to count all the cells we have disrupted in this country populated by visa holdovers from the Gorelick wall days of Clinton.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Free to attack LA? Well sure, under Bush's current open borders policy. If we defend our borders, we need not worry about terrorists sneaking in to attack us. As for the ones here? We can deal with them effectively.
... which the rest of supposedly lack, tell us how you define victory, in the war by whatever name you like.
I agree with your point that "We are fighting an culpable enemy", so given your intellectual capacity you no doubt can articulate what we must necessarily accomplish in that fight, which we will refer to by the shorthand term "victory".
rebuffing the press.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"I am so befuddled as to why so many republicans look to Rudy as their savior."
Funny, I keep hearing exactly the same thing from the Giuliani supporters (and others) with respect to Fred Thompson.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."