The Rudy schism
By Paul J Cella Posted in Archived — Comments (91) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For many decades now, what we call the Conservative movement in America has found its political home in the Republican Party. It has been a very uneasy alliance, but a fruitful one. Conservatives have not only resisted the maneuvers of Liberalism with considerable success, but actually regained some ground. By the mid-1970s, it was clear that Conservatism had no other possible home, the Democrats having driven virtually anyone with a Conservative sympathy out of their party. It is vital to remember that this development — the concentration of Conservatism in one party and Liberalism in another — stands as major defeat for the former. Willmoore Kendall used to refer disdainfully to the Liberal project of saddling the country with the "special curse" of "rigidly ideological parties." When Conservatism was more diffuse across the electoral spectrum, less ideological, and less identifiable, it was more effective — especially in resisting Liberalism. It was part of the political atmosphere, and virtually every candidate for national office had to contend with it. Academic Liberals were infuriated by this, and began maneuvering to counter it. One of their maneuver was to propose ideological parties. Assuming as they did that Liberalism was the more popular position, they figured that transforming the presidential elections into vast plebiscites pitting one ideology against the other, would redound to their favor. In the short term they were wrong, and this was driven home solidly by Reagan's resounding defeats of McGovernite Liberalism. But in the long-term the curse came to fruition. Conservatism's power diminished as it was concentrated.
Eventually the Liberals gained enough ground that Conservatives had to organize, and so they took the bait and organized within the GOP. I think Reagan's great success obscured the problem, which only now manifests its true dimensions.
We are still several months before the first primary, but already the possibility of Republicans nominating Rudy Giuliani augurs a terrible schism. From the perspective of many of us, Rudy is a Liberal. On one issue and one issue alone has he really governed as a Conservative: crime, which he has translated into an aggressive posture in what is called the War on Terror. (Some may be inclined to add economic policies to that, but in my reading Giuliani is a pragmatist here, not a philosophical opponent of Liberalism.) He fits the type of that old saw about every man being a conservative in his area of expertise.
On all the other big questions about the character of the American social order, he stands with the Liberals. He’s pro-choice; he’s pro-gay-marriage; he’s a public cross-dresser; he’s an innovator in the sanctuary city usurpation; his public infidelities have alienated his own children, a betrayal for which he has not shown even a scrap of remorse. This country is on the verge of some truly horrific “progress” in the field of biotechnology — a eugenics regime of coarse egotism, dulcified callousness, and unspeakable degradation. Do you think Rudy Giuliani will stand against it?
We all shudder at the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Some of us shudder at the thought that our party is prepared to nominate a man who basically agrees with her about the nature of American society. Some of us cannot help but judge his nomination as a repudiation of Conservatism in the party where it has long found a home. The special curse will be consummated.
Let me also add two more points: (1) We are still in the lead-up to the primary season. If now is not the time to speak our minds on who we are as a party, when is the time? after the election? (2) A lot of Rudy supporters seems to have totally absorbed the “national plebiscite” formula of the Liberals. In fact the presidential election is a series of elections: one in each state. I live in the state of Georgia. Nominee Giuliani, barring some really unexpected developments, will carry this state with no trouble. So tell me again how I am bound to vote for him; how my failure to do say will hand the White House to Hillary?
No he's not. If you're going to attack him, at least do some research. He's never been pro-gay marriage. He has the same position as President Bush, VP Cheney and most of the D candidates, he's against gay marriage but supports civil unions. The only shift from President Bush's position is that Giuliani does not support the destined-for-the-trashbin FMA.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
My mistake.
Giuliani did sign a very liberal civil unions bill as Mayor, though to he has been tacking right to win the nomination.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I understand that he is much more accepting of homosexuality as a lifestyle than many social conservatives (fwiw, I think President Bush and VP Cheney are as well). And he probably supports some legislation related to gay rights that most Rs don't. It might be worth looking into what those are (gay adoption?).
Also, I was more curt than I should have been. I have just gotten frustrated with how many times that incorrect statement has been made in diaries and comments.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It was actually a domestic partnership law, and he had very little choice. The sizeable gay community in New York had won over the liberals that make up most of the city on the issue. And when you face a City Council that has Democrats holding 50 of 53 seats, there's little point to picking the fight.
Vetoing the legislation would have garnered him no support - even the Republicans in New York weren't in an uproar over the bill, and it would have lost him a lot of support with people who were otherwise willing to support him.
I can't really fault him for signing - since an override was a foregone conclusion, he gained nothing by vetoing. Signing eliminated a potential issue those opposed to his policies could have used.
It might be true that he couldn't have stopped it it he'd wanted to, but do you have any evidence at all to support the implication that that was what he actually wanted? I lived in the New York media market during the entirety of his terms in office and I'm pretty sure that you don't.
-exits
we can expect Rudy to sign all those Dem bills because there would be little use to fighting? I frankly think that folks are all too ready to ignore Rudy's record just because they think he can win next November. I have always believed that you need to look at a grown man's history to know what he will do in the future. Neither Romney nor Rudy will govern as Conservatives, in my opinion.
Has Bush ever actually said that he supports civil unions? If I recall correctly with regards to the Charlie Gibson interview before the 2004 reelection, President Bush said that he thinks states should be be able to enact civil unions IF THEY CHOOSE to.
I'm not aware of Bush ever saying that he personally supports civil unions, or that he would support their adoption into law. I wonder if he voted for the Texas marriage amendment, which was one of the comprehensive ones that banned gay marriage and all of its euphemistic substitutes.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush does support civil unions, but I just can't recall him ever saying that he does.
A President Giuliani would still have his one vote as a New York resident to support civil unions in New York. Aside from that, his position on civil unions would be the same as President Bush's, which is "Keep this stuff out of my face and go argue about it in state capitols, I can't waste my time with this. I've got a war to win, along with fights with the Democrats over taxes and spending, etc."
It's easy to win an argument when you are free to make S%$t up at will, and badly distort things, as you have done here.
Rudy is pro-choice, fair enough, but he's pledged to appoint strict constructionist.
Rudy is not for Gay Marriage. That's just made up out of whole cloth.
Calling Rudy a "public cross dresser" is absurd. He dressed up as Marylin Monroe as a gag once at a New Years Party. If you have a problem with that, get a life.
His marital problems have caused problems with his children, but give me a break! That's hardly to say he's "totally unrepentant" of that, you have absolutely no clue what's been said or done between them, or his former wife, for that matter. He doesn't owe you a damn explanation, that's between him and his kids and his ex.
Saying he's only an economic conservative for pragmatic reasons is so completely absurd it's difficult to even debate. No fair minded person can look at his record and come to that conclusion. Heck, you can even tell that from his record while working at the Justice Department when he helped break the Air Traffic Controller's strike, let alone his tenor as Mayor, in which he cut the overall level of spending in a city that was 5-1 D.
The basic line you seem to be giving me is "Rudy isn't 'one of us'" and by "us" you mean nice, middle class, churchgoing folk. I think it's fair to say that I fit into that category. Yet to demand that an entire political party nominate someone just like you every time is absurd.
“I am telling people loosen your ties, fire up the coffee pots, get ready for the weekend, ... We've got a lot of work to do.”
- John Bolton
I stand corrected on the specific issue of gay marriage, but can there be any doubt that he is well to the left of the country, much less the party, on homosexuality as a public issue?
There's nothing inherently wrong about being pragmatic on economic issues. I'm probably more pragmatic on alot of them than most people here. My point is that he has supported tax cuts because they work, but because (say) he has a principled opposition to progressive taxation. The Conservative position began as a philosophical one: that progressive taxation is a Marxist idea (look it up in the ol' Manifesto) and amounts to little more than theft.
So my argument, again, is that Giuliani's economic policies were admirable, they are not evidence of a philosophical Conservatism. Like I said, only on the issue of crime is there any evidence that Giuliani embraces that philosophy. It is interesting, no, that it is there where is success is was the greatest?
As for his private life, well, a number of things could be said about Republicans adopting the very positions they repudiated during the Clinton impeachment; but I will content myself with repeating what we said back then: the personal virtue (or lack thereof) a man who presents himself for consideration as leader of the country, is a public issue. There are limits to this, of course: but Rudy crossed them many times.
And yes, a guy who cross-dresses (repeatedly, not just once) and lets Donald Trump kiss his "breast," is not a man I really respect. He degrades himself and the institutional of marriage. Homosexuals often say heterosexuals have done far more damage to marriage than they ever will; they are right. Rudy Giuliani is a striking example.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
lots of evidence that great leaders in the past from Churchill, FDR, and Eisenhower all had mistresses. But Stalin was a model husband.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
the man who intends to leads the Executive Branch of the Republic. As Washington put it in his first inaugural address, "the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." A man who sows disorder and alienation in his own home on such a scale as Giuliani has, who carries on open adulterous relationships while in public office, who attempts to throw his wife out of his house (Gracie Mansion) to bring in his new concubine, is not a man fit for high office.
lots of evidence that great leaders in the past from Churchill, FDR, and Eisenhower all had mistresses. But Stalin was a model husband.
Horseapples. So now we have to slander other man, bring them down, in order to defend our boy?
Eisenhower, while he was away from his wife for five years in Europe during World War II, may have had an affair. It did not become public knowledge until decades later. There was no scandal. Eisenhower returned to his wife. There is really no comparison between that and Giuliani’s multiple wives and public extramarital affairs and abandonment of his children and all the rest of it. But again, to justify Giuliani, all distinctions between different degrees of bad behavior must be throw out.
Great historical figures must be tarnished, rumors dragged out from dark corners, our whole history must be given the most negative possible light, in order to prevent us from passing judgment on some contemporary figure whom we want to protect. As with the Clinton scandals, the refrain becomes, "Everyone does it."
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
who were, after all, just men, not angels, (I can throw in several of the founding father's to that list)
So you say I am dragging them into the mud? NO I am trying to drag you to your senses. I find a man's married life to be realitivly inconsequential compared to other factors, leadership ability, ideology, and determination being a few.
Like I said are we electing a saint? Actually I hope not, we might get a grand, puritanical, self righteous super Christian like JIMMY CARTER!
Look, you can dislike Rudy all you want, but to hold his marriages against him is both judgmental(where you there? do you know all the facts?) and historically nonsensical.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Look man, if infidelity to one's wife, and to the vows one took before God and man in the institution of marriage, amount to sainthood, then the Church needs to expand her lists of saints.
It's amazing: I have to rehearse the arguments made in the gay marriage debate here. Marriage is a public institution, not merely a private one; that's why the wedding is one of the most public of occasions. It is one of the cornerstones of any healthy society. For a man to stomp on it -- well, I will content myself with holding that against him.
___________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
The concentration of conservatism in the Republican party was the natural result of the adoption of liberalism by the D's. Hardly an academic plot, just a response to the policies Roosevelt enshrined. Once there was no place for conservative D's they migrated to the GOP.
I also don't view the national elections as referendums on conservatism or liberalism. Lets look at the last 50 years or so.
52 Eisenhower VS Stevenson Eisenhower was a self proclaimed liberal (not by todays standards) So it boiled down to the War Hero vs what ?
56 Eisenhower VS Stevenson again, Proves the democrats can be hard of hearing.
60 Nixon vs Kennedy The first battle over who was more telegenic
64 LBJ vs Goldwater Definitely conservative vs liberal and the strangest positions either side has ever taken
68 Nixon vs Humphrey A man promising victory in the war vs Who ? How did he get nominated ?
72 Nixon vs McGovern we may not like the war but we don't want to lose
76 Carter vs Ford Just who was the liberal ?
80 Reagan vs Carter Victory for anyone who wasn't carter
84 Reagan vs Mondale Proving once and for all running on a platform of raising peoples taxes doesn't work
88 Bush 41 vs Dukakis If you are not Patton don't ride around in a tank
92 Billy Bubba Clinton vs Bush 41 vs H R Perot Proves that one the American people do have a memory when it comes to their taxes two If your initials resemble H R Puffinstuffs and so does your mental acuity don't run for president as a third party.
96 Clinton vs Dole The most personable man on the planet vs Possibly the least
2000 W vs Gore or the Human vs the Robot.
2004 W vs Long John Kerry Don't brag about getting shot in the rear, its not presidential, Second the American people can tell when you are looking down that long nose at them.
Theres not a lot of Lib vs Conservative plebiscite here.
______________________________
"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
Indeed. In true terms the only "liberal vs. conservative" elections here are 1964, 1980 and 1984. Maybe you throw in 2004 depending on whether you modify the relative weight of foreign policy/hawkishness post-9/11.
The rest were really about a moderate to liberal vs. an all-out nutter (1968, 1972, 1976, 1988), or varying shades of left-of-center against each other (1952, 1956, 1960, 1992, 1996). Maybe 2000 was right-of-center vs. nutter, maybe it was just a moderate vs a nutter (depending on your view of W).
This concentration was not complete until fairly recently, and even then it is not perfect, but the point is that the ideologizing of the parties, along the lines envisioned by good academic Liberals in the 1950s like James MacGregor Burns, has continued apace since the 1960s.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
If you're a conservative and you pull the lever for door #3, you might as well vote directly for Hillary.
Please read the point I made at the end.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
OK...this is way off topic i know but what could Joe Torre POSSIBLY do in a Guiliani administration???
Who would want him as president? Except of course, Neocons. The conservatives want the Republican party back from you Neocons. Go join the Dems.
Define Neocon, precisely and accurately in four sentences (I can).
Tell me just who exactly are the Neocons by name. (not hard to do really there are only about six of them.)
part three, stop throwing around words you do not understand.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I live in the state of Georgia. Nominee Giuliani, barring some really unexpected developments, will carry this state with no trouble. So tell me again how I am bound to vote for him; how my failure to do say will hand the White House to Hillary?
That's a valid point for where you live (and for where I live). In a state that solidly red or blue for the given election, a person can safely proceed on the assumption that how or whether he votes can't possibly matter in deciding who will be President of the United States. So while I would disagree with you casting a 3rd party protest vote in a Clinton-Giuliani contest, I would not consider it an abdication of your duty to try to give your country the best President among the candidates who actually have a chance of being elected at the time.
Your protest vote is a much different issue than what most of the recent debate is about. There the threat is that if we nominate Giuliani (or Romney or whomever), a significant number of social conservatives will throw the election to Clinton by voting third party. That clearly requires that the relevant voters live in states that are in play.
I don't consider the threats credible, because I don't think enough people to matter would actually do it in a Clinton-Giuliani general election, but handing the White House to Hillary Clinton is the central point of the threats being made.
The last paragraph is your post is pretty unbelievable. Thats exactly what Dems said about Nader in 2000. Enough of these people go third party or stay home goodbye Florida Ohio Arkansas Colorado New Mexico....Its insane to think the numbers arent significant
If Al Gore had tried to make himself more appealing to liberals dumb enough to vote for Nader in a swing state like Florida, maybe he would have attracted their votes; but in doing so he would have alienated enough centrist voters to lose Florida by an even bigger margin, along with a few other states.
10% of the electorate is seeking to control the election. Its a recipe for disaster.
______________________________
"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 a lot of social conservatives, but nowhere near 10% who would vote third party to put Clinton in the White House.
There are enough social conservative Republicans, that they probably will get a Republican nominee other than Giuliani if they decide his social positions are important enough to unite in opposition to him. If however Giuliani is the nominee, he will overwhelmingly win the social conservative vote in the general election.
Sure a bunch will make threats to vote third party in hopes of influencing other Republicans to nominate someone other than Giuliani, but in the general election very few would be silly enough to actually carry out that threat.
I think you are probably correct on this. If Giuliani gets the nod, the Social Conservatives may well hold their nose and support him, choosing the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
However, is it worth the risk of a third party defection to proceed on that assumption? Once the nomination is in place, it's a little too late to undue that particular decision.
The real issue seems to me to be who get to compose the 'soul' of the GOP. It currently comprises Social Cons, Fiscal Cons, and Defense Cons, plus a bunch of other mixes.
Does the GOP need to be 'exorcised' of us Social Conservatives, from those of us who tend to make decisions based on the assumption that there is an absolute arbiter of men's affairs? Who believe that to cross His guidance is a recipe for failure (proven by millennium of historical examples, btw).
Those driving forward with Rudy -damn the torpedoes!-seem to be saying that is exactly what they want.
You invoke Thomas Paine and the original ideal of freedom for which he and so many other patriots fought.
If you were to ask Paine today which candidate he would support, he would simply hold out the Constitution of the United States of America, and without uttering a single eloquent word, you would know exactly who he was "talking" about!
Edwards may like Egalite, but not the other two. It is true Paine went a bit batty near the end, but his written words meant a lot and still do.
Molon Labe!
All I'm sayin' is somehow most Americans seem to think the patriots and the framers of the constitution were babbling loonies, at least that's what everyone in the corporate media says about Ron Paul
I saw a report that he, Biden and Edwards, and Richardson have asked to be taken off the Michigan primary ballot.
Is the DNC expected to strip Michigan of its delegates for violating the timing rules in addition to Florida? If not, why would Obama and Edwards be giving away the state to Clinton for free? With them off the ballot she can almost totally ignore the state and still win.
He is getting more press and tv time than ever, no chance he will give this up. This IS about control not religion. One day those ten percent will realize they are fighting against majority Christians.
Molon Labe!
... my point was that I don't think a significant number of social conservatives are as dumb as the Florida Nader voters in 2000. The number who would consider a President Clinton preferable to a President Giuliani is too small to make a difference.
polling does not seem to back up what you "think"....Rudy-Hillary is going to be dam close, and small amounts of votes WILL make a difference..Just look at the new round of polls today, all within the margin of error when Rudy v Hillary match up, all would be affected by a conservative walk out or protest vote......
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/after-debate-gop-race-looks-like....
... and yes it's theoretically possible. But the likelihood of an election as close as 2000 where it could be tilted by a few percent of social conservatives staying home is minimal.
I expect it to be a "close" race in that the outcome will probably still be in doubt a week before the election, but most likely one or the other side will win more decisively than Bush in 2004.
Even if it does turn out close enough that a few thousand social conservatives staying home give Hillary the chance to enshrine Roe for the next 20 years, such a situation would be one where a GOP candidate satisfactory to those guys would have lost by a bigger margin even with their votes.
Popular vote you might be right, the the EC is still going to hinge on Florida and Ohio....Im not quite as confident as you are but I hope your right
If Giuliani is the nominee, there's no way he'll say or do anything to stem the tide of Social Conservatives voting third party. He'll look weak and flip floppity. The only logical solution for any true Republican is to support only candidates that all major constituencies of the party can support in the general.
Who do you want leading the efforts agianst the major Democratic Majorites in the House and Senete you all know is coming? Rudy has fought an all Dem Establisment before, he took the bull by the horns, and he won. I have a hard time thinking when the President goes to the Roosevelt Room to meet with the Democratic leadership that Romney is going to hold a tough line and Rudy is going to roll over. We need a junkyard dog to face the Dems in the Congress, if these people get enough Senators they WILL pass a government single payer health care system, Romney, citing his Mass plan will be more than happy to sign on. Rudy will have none of it. Romney takes away the health care issue for us, goodbye markets, hello Hillary-Mitt care.....
Dr. Paul is known as "Dr. No" because he has voted against every spending bill not supported by the constitution. You say you want a President who will stop the Democrats from taking you're money, here's the man who walks the walk, friends!
It was because he was a crazy unstable guy who has his own fanatical henchmen. Has he finished the new lair he's building inside that volcano yet?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
it is hard to get very worked up over Rudy on ideological grounds. The greatest difference between the two is the sordid lifestyle of the ex-mayor, which mirrors that of---yes, the likely Democratic nominee's ex-president husband.
all of you underestimate Rudy. First, he is not a liberal. He is socially liberal. He governed in an ultra liberal city and thus it is very difficult to govern conservatively, successfully, in such a city. Read what the Club For Growth said about his economic policies. He is certainly not liberal on the issue of foreign policy. He is not a liberal on the size of government. What I get is a lot of people that feel the social issues are extremely important and thus either manipulate the rest of his record or simply don't really understand it. On the issue of judges his whole entire staff is filled with Strict Constructionists. All of you completely underestimate Rudy and you don't really understand most of his positions or how he arrived at them. Here is how I saw it...
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/paradigm-that-is-rudy-giuli...
Finally, whatever faults he may have there are two areas in which he is qualified in spades, and frankly more qualified than any of the candidates any of you support, leadership and effectiveness. Now, somewhere I heard that above policy and ideology those two traits are actually a lot more important than belief systems when one is actually President. It is a wonder who some of you will support while totally disregarding these two qualities, when it is leadership and effectiveness that is a lot more important when actually being President.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
From the CFG white paper on Rudy this is what Rudy thinks about NAFTA
I continue to be concerned about the effect it [NAFTA] would have on the job situation in New York City...I haven't seen anything that's going to explain to me how, at least in the short term, it would improve the job loss which has been very, very significant.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I am talking about..
The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his
opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media."Rudy Giuliani will still need to flesh out his positions on a number of federal issues, and we hope he will reconsider his few anti-growth positions," Mr. Toomey said. "But it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment."
If CFG can recognize that governing in New York forces anyone, anyone, to the left, why can't Redstate? Rudy governed exceptionally Conservatively in one of the bluest areas of the country. He did it effectively. If you can't recognize that simply governing the city of New York moves the politician to the left, then I can't help you, but CFG does. Period.
Again, leadership and effectiveness, those are two concepts that I find significantly more important than someone's position on frankly just about anything, and in this field there is one candidate that stands out on those two concepts and that is why I support Rudy.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I really, really don't think you want to make the argument that Giuliani governs in the way he thinks maximizes his chances of winning the next election, Mike.
if your entire City Council is liberal Democrat, you have to compromise with them on liberal issues or get nothing done. This had nothing to do with getting re elected, but it had everything to do with governing effectively, which he did. Again, unlike Fred Thompson, who has lead nothing in his life, Rudy had to actually govern, not just talk about all of the things he would accomplish, and in the real world of governing there is a legislature, in this case a very liberal legislature, that he had to work with. Thus, he was forced to make concessions in order to get his agenda through.
I know in the idealistic world of Thompson supporters one never needs to compromise because Thompson only talks about things he would like to accomplish and has actually accomplished nothing, but Rudy, unfortunately for him, actually governed in the real world known as New York City, and in New York City, in order to govern he had to make concessions to an extemely liberal city council.
I know it is hard for you to imagine making compromise because your candidate never had to, but then again, your candidate's list of accomplishments includes the empty space that follows this word.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
There was nobody forcing Rudy to make the statement about NAFTA that he made. That was his judgement. Club for Growth wrote
As the financial center of the country, if not the world, New York City stood to benefit from the removal of trade barriers in North America. Given his sparse record on trade and his curious opposition to NAFTA, Americans have a right to question whether a President Giuliani would expend the political capital to continue the kind of broad free trade deals that have contributed to American prosperity over the past generation.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
he felt that NAFTA was bad for New York City. Maybe, in fact, it was. Again, you all take that statement totally out of context. The CFG endorsed Rudy as a strong pro growth, small government, lower taxes politician. You cannot read what they wrote any other way, and what all of you do is pick the parts you don't like without acknowledging the ultimate conclusion, that governed, effectively, as a small government, lower taxes, pro growth mayor in an environment that they referred to as hostile.
Now, again, any Thompson supporter can compare the record of a mayor from a liberal city, to his statements that he never had to back up or actually do anything with and conclude that he is more the candidate you like, however in the real world, one has to compromise to govern effectively, and it is even more difficult when your entire City Council is liberal Democrat.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I do not disagree with you and Club for Growth that Rudy has a good record to run on when it comes to taxes. I'm sorry you thought I was overlooking that, but I thought everybody knew that about Rudy. You apparently don't like someone to point out negative things about Rudy. Rudy is not good an free trade and he is not good on free speech in addition to not being good on pro-life.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Rudy's negatives, what I have a problem with is when people try and smear Rudy with no context. You simply aren't going to govern effectively on anything in New York City without throwing a bone to the liberal City Council from time to time, that is the real world, unlike the theoretical world that Thompson has lived in his entire political career.
Free trade is not an issue that a mayor has to deal with, and thus, his record on free trade is fairly clean. Unlike Fred Thompson, when I want to look at Rudy's record on something, all I need to do is go back and see what he did or didn't actually accomplish, and also to be fair, put it into the context of the environment he was in.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Free trade is not an issue that a mayor has to deal with, and thus, his record on free trade is fairly clean.
Unlike Fred Thompson, when I want to look at Rudy's record on something, all I need to do is go back and see what he did or didn't actually accomplish, and also to be fair, put it into the context of the environment he was in.
So Rudy's record on free trade is clean because he never actually had a thing to do with trade, since he was only a mayor. Then you go on to rip Fred because you can look at Rudy's record and decide where he stands based on that. But you just admitted that he has a clean record on trade because he never had anything to say about it. So what does looking at Rudy's record tell you about his support for free trade, again?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
the most liberal place, this side of SF, in the country is different than governing the entire nation which is significantly less liberal. Since a mayor is not involved in trade policy his record on trade is clean. Where Rudy has a plethora of accomplishments is being able to advance his agenda in a hostile environment, a pro growth, tough on crime, smaller government, lower taxes agenda.
To me, it isn't enough just to have a nice agenda. You have to be able to accomplish things. You all can say what you want about Thompson but I have no doubt that he simply will not know how to govern, Period. That is why I cannot support him. This isn't an entry level job and he has an entry level resume. It is as simple as that. Whatever he says he will or he won't do, he has no idea how to advance the agenda. Rudy does.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
free trade and free speech were all on him. They had nothing to do with throwing a bone to a liberal city council. Those kind of statements he made a simply are a reflection of a feisty Rudy. I will concede that as a mayor he had pressure to be careful about talking about guns and abortions, but he did not have any pressure from anybody concerning how he felt about free speech and free trade issues.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
about free trade, was from the perspective of someone running the city of New York. It is very likely that he saw NAFTA as a detriment to New Yorkers, he was running one city not the entire country. I don't know what he said vis a vis (my new favorite word) CFR and so I won't defend it, and I don't really care that much because his agenda won't spend much time focusing on squashing free speech. Here is his agenda. When you look at it, and realize that he is someone that gets things done, if you look at it fairly, you should see that he will leave this country better than when he gets into office.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
If CFG can recognize that governing in New York forces anyone, anyone, to the left, why can't Redstate?
The Romney guys are always saying the same thing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and it is beyond debate that each governed effectively in a hostile environment, however Rudy governed significantly more effectively in an environment that was also significantly more hostile.
Frankly, if the Republican party turns its back on Rudy this year, when he is head and shoulders the most qualified to lead it, by qualified I mean in terms of leadership and effectiveness, the two things I look for first when deciding the candidate to support, then they are saying that no one from New York City need apply for any Republican leadership postions because a New Yorker will always be too liberal, or ineffective.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
based on that Hitler would make a good leader. He was a charismatic leader and certainly was effective in bringing a lot of change to Germany. Leadership and effectiveness are only good if leading to good results. Giuliani had some good results in New York City and showed some leadership. That isn't enough, though, to overcome my disagreements with him, at least until after the primary.
DISCLAIMER: I am not, under any circumstances, comparing Giuliani to Hitler. The way some of his supporters read things, I just want to be sure that this is clear.
in this case, when I say leadership and effectiveness, I mean governing in a way that leaves the place you governed better, significantly better, than when you started, because gee, I heard that was also kind of important when it comes to being President.
Again, you can agree with Thompson on everything, but you are all going on blind faith that he will have the competence to actually accomplish anything. He has accomplished nothing. Rudy turned around a city that everyone said was ungovernable, in an environment that was hostile, in which the City Council, the newspapers, the unions, and the civic leaders all considered themselves his political opponents. That is a pretty amazing accomplishment when you think about. He is in fact a uniquely qualified candidate, whereas Thompson is only qualified in that you agree with him most of the time.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
when I say leadership and effectiveness, I mean governing in a way that leaves the place you governed better, significantly better, than when you started
The guy's positions on the issues doesn't have any impact on his leadership abilities and effectiveness, but it has one heck of an impact on "governing in a way that leaves the place you governed better." Rudy's positions on the issues is where he comes up short.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
which he governed, effectively for eight years. Is there any debate that once he was done New York City was not only better, but a lot better than when he started. See, with Rudy we only need to look at the record. You can give me all the hypotheticals that you want, but in reality, when he did govern, he governed effectively and left that place better, much better than when he started, now how does Fred Thompson rate when you look at the candidate through that prism. Oh, that's right, he hasn't actually ever governed and yet you want to make him the most important Chief Executive in the country. Yeah, that seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Isn't what is dictating his current positions. He has chosen those all by himself for his run as the Republican nominee. I'm not satisfied with the positions he is articulating now. That is the problem, much more than what he did or didn't do as mayor of NYC.
He certainly did a great job as mayor, but that has very little to do with being President. It's a totally different job with totally different powers and totally different responsibilities. Just because someone's a great basketball player doesn't mean they would be great as a test pilot. Experience as a Governor is the only thing that even comes close to a trial run as POTUS, since states are organized along the same lines and governors have a lot of the same powers. Mayoral or senatorial experience, not so much.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
experience running the biggest city in the country is plenty good as a precursor to running the whole entire country, and besides Rudy's experience doesn't stop at being mayor. Before that, he was among the most effective Prosecutors in the history of the United States, and afterwards he ran a business successfully, boy do you see a pattern forming?
Now, what exactly is the experience that impresses you with Thompson that makes you think he will be a good President, or do you think that what you say is a better indicator of how well you will govern than what you have actually done?
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
experience running the biggest city in the country is plenty good as a precursor to running the whole entire country
Yea, because the President of the United States spends a lot of time thinking about stuff like building permits and zoning, clearing porno theaters out of Times Square, dealing with panhandling bums, dealing with graffiti and gang activity, etc. And the NYC city council is so much like the bicameral US legislature. It really is the perfect training.
The business stuff does nothing for me. Al Gore is even a successful business man now. It's pretty easy to be a success in business after you make a huge name for yourself in politics. People will pay you gobs of money just to have you hang around the office a few hours a month so they can bask in your celebrity.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
being a lawyer. That was good experience. I didn't say that running New York is an exact replica. I said that he has experience in leading a government, and not only does he have experience but in fact, his record is incredibly strong. His resume is head and shoulders above anyone else's in the field and that is why I have decided to support him. It isn't merely the day to day of the specific things that get done. Yes, he won't be dealing with building permits, however he will be dealing with an entire organization that he will be leading and that he has experience with and not only that, but he has proven to be an effective leader.
Again, besides his experience as a successful business person, he was also a successful prosecutor. Do you see a pattern? Everything he did he was successful in. What has Thompson accomplished again?
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
as opposed to what exactly being a lawyer.
You keep bringing Fred into it... not sure why. I'm not aware of anyone claiming Fred's experience is great and THE reason to vote for the guy in the primary. Certainly I've never claimed that.
His resume is head and shoulders above anyone else's in the field and that is why I have decided to support him.
If experience was my main criteria (and it isn't), Romney would be my guy. His experience is much better than Rudy's. He has run an entire state. He's dealt with a legislative body and political environment that is much more like the one we have in DC than what Rudy has dealt with. He's dealt with issues that are much more like the ones he'd have to deal with in DC than Rudy has.
Again, besides his experience as a successful business person, he was also a successful prosecutor.
Big deal. What is that supposed to do for me? I care that he was a successful prosecutor like I care if he was a successful garbage man or successful bungee jumper.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
They're not professional garbage men or bungee jumpers. At least not Giuliani. The American Academy of Achievement calls him the "...greatest mayor in the long history of New York City."
Now, a lot of the Ron Paul disciples believe he was secretly complicit in 9/11 just so that he could get that kind of recognition and run for President...after all, as the primary benefactor, how could he have not known about the thermite?
I trust you're not worried about tangling with them...but even I have to say that Rudy wasn't a garbage man or a bungee jumper. He was a good mayor of New York, and did a great job under some difficult circumstances. And he could have very easily gotten his brains blown out before he ever reached that point because of some of the people he prosecuted. These people were not bungee-jumpers gone astray: they were mafia leaders.
Is that it is totally irrelevant. It is as irrelevant as Kerry's time spent in Vietnam. It is as irrelevant as Reagan's career as an actor. Being a former prosecutor isn't a qualification for the job. Mayor is at somewhat relevant experience.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
a lot of bad people really well gives an individual nothing from which to draw on when they are President. Have you ever prepared and investigated a case for prosecution? Do you have any idea how organized, disciplined, and dedicated someone has to be in order to do it well, let alone be among the best ever at it. Do you think that organization, dedication and focus are not three things that Presidents need to have? That is the way you view the world. You think that someone that was among the best prosecutors every and then among the best mayors ever, has only about as much experience and accomplishments that will guide him as anyone else in the field. By that thinking companies would never hire CEO's or any high level managers from any other industries, because running a soft drink company is nothing like running a trucking company for instance.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Really, so the ability to be able to prosecute a lot of bad people really well gives an individual nothing from which to draw on when they are President.
That's not the President's job. If Rudy was running for Attorney General, that might be good experience, though.
let alone be among the best ever at it
Based on what? Is there a hall of fame? Does he hold a lot of all-time records? I'm not sure how you decide that someone is "among the best prosecutors ever." However you would decide that, it would certainly have to be subjective.
Do you think that organization, dedication and focus are not three things that Presidents need to have?
Everybody running for the office has those things. In order to make a serious run for that office, you pretty much have to have those qualities. So it is pretty much a non-issue.
By that thinking companies would never hire CEO's or any high level managers from any other industries, because running a soft drink company is nothing like running a trucking company for instance.
That would apply if we were talking about someone who was the President of France running for POTUS. A better analogy would be to being a mechanical engineer versus running a trucking company. Maybe he was the best mechanical engineer in the history of mechanical engineering, but it isn't relevant experience, so who cares?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
would have some skills that one would look for in a CEO (attention to detail, organization, analytical ability, etc.) however not very much on its own. However, if that mechanical engineer then also went on to run his own mechanical engineering company, successfully, then that mechanical engineer begins to look like a very qualified candidate for CEO.
You think Fred Thompson has as much organization, dedication, and focus as Rudy. How do you figure on that? What has Fred Thompson done with his life and accomplished that makes you think he has those traits in the spades that I know that Rudy does.
As for being the best, well, as Kowalski showed, he is recognized by at least one publication as the greatest mayor of all time. As for being among the greatest prosecutors, well the mafia in the area around New York is a shell of its former self and that is due almost entirely to Rudy Giuliani.
If you don't care about experience and accomplishment, that is your prerogative. I think that is nuts, but don't pretend as though there is even a comparison between Rudy's experience and accomplishments and that of the rest of the field. Don't pretend that if this was based on resume that any of us would even be debating who would be President. I think that is important. I think it is a lot more important than someone's view on one particular issue, or even a handful of issues, but you seem to think that it really doesn't matter what someone has actually accomplished in their lives, just as long as they see the world exactly as you see it.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I never said it wasn't. That said, I believe that Rudy's accomplishments are far superior to that of Romney's. I also believe that Romney is not genuous in most of his recent Conservative transformations, and I would much rather the candidate tell me how they really feel about an issue than pander for votes and pretend to feel a certain way because most of the voters feel that way.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I also believe that Romney is not genuous in most of his recent Conservative transformations, and I would much rather the candidate tell me how they really feel about an issue than pander for votes and pretend to feel a certain way because most of the voters feel that way.
I'd take a guy who says the right things but may not genuinely believe them over a guy who says the wrong things but may genuinely believe them.
I'm not sure that's the case with Rudy anyway. Just because he is saying unpopular things doesn't mean he is actually committed to them. It could mean he doesn't want to flip because he's afraid it would tarnish his image, that he thinks he can win without flipping, that he's just stubborn and doesn't think he should have to flip, or that it's really not that big of an issue. The pro-choice thing is a good example. I don't believe that Rudy is personally committed pro-choicer and gets up in the morning thinking about how he will protect "a women's right to choose." I think he has simply stuck with a position he adopted early on for purely political reasons.
I give Romney credit for at least knowing most of the right things to say and saying them. I'm not sure Rudy even knows where he's wrong. If Rudy had flipped on a few of these issues forcefully and immediately he could have been my #1 choice. He blew it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
you have no principles. Just because you disagree with Rudy doesn't mean he is wrong and you are right. It takes a lot of hubris for you to say that you know better than Rudy. He said why he is pro choice. If you don't like it, fine, but I will not accept that you are right and he is wrong. It is not such an issue.
Gee, it took an awful lot of smarts and skill for Romney to figure out the base of the Republican Party is socially conservative and that if he wanted to win, he would need to have his views on social issues fall in line with that of the base. I really want to give him a lot of credit for that.
What you are basically saying is that you would rather have someone that panders to you then someone that stands up for what they believe in even if what they believe in ultimately jeopardizes their electability. In other words, you want someone with no principles.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Just because you disagree with Rudy doesn't mean he is wrong and you are right. It takes a lot of hubris for you to say that you know better than Rudy. He said why he is pro choice. If you don't like it, fine, but I will not accept that you are right and he is wrong.
You are right! I totally forgot to consider that maybe abortion and gun control are just fantastic things... that maybe I was completely mistaken in my opposition to them for all this time. I mean, who am I to say I know better than Rudy about abortion or gun control? Thanks for finally opening my eyes. Now that you've clarified my thinking about it, who am I to say that Hillary is wrong about anything? Who are you to say that Hillary is wrong about anything? How dare any of us judge Hillary's positions on the issues. Who do we think we are?
What you are basically saying is that you would rather have someone that panders to you then someone that stands up for what they believe
Nobody knows what anybody else believes. All we have to go on is what they've done, and what they've said. All I know is Romney has done and is saying more of the right things than Rudy is at the moment. That puts him ahead in my book. I don't give people credit for being consistently wrong. Oh, but that takes us back to the beginning. Who am I to say that abortion is bad?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
however these are not issues with a scorecard. Hillary sees the world completely differently than me. Rudy sees the world a little different than me, and on the things that matter to me, we see eye to eye. That said, I don't presume to proclaim that I am right. Of course, I think I am right, if I didn't I would take the other position. These are universal and longstanding debates. In the end, right and wrong is not decided by us. Thus, presuming that you are right and someone else is wrong is hubris.
Again, if you are social conservative and you believe in the sanctity of life and that is important to you, then don't support him, but don't say you are right and he is wrong. In a debate, whenever you proclaim that you are right, it is because you have nothing else to say. Claiming you are right in a debate is asysnine. I assume you think you are right, if you didn't would take another position. Romney, if you believe his turnaround is disingenuous, believes that the right position is to allow a woman to choose, and takes a different position because that is what he thinks people want to hear. For you, that is better than Rudy sticking to his position because that is the position he thinks is right.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Going forward, feel free to interpret wherever I said he's wrong on the issues to mean "he's wrong on the issues according to zuiko" (oh and the vast majority of the party as well). I would have thought that was automatic (it would be for most people), but apparently you are the one guy who doesn't get that.
This complaint is the very definition of asinine. I'm not going to start prefacing every statement I make with "In my humble opinion." Rudy is wrong on life. There, I said it. If you don't like that, tough.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think it is far more important that someone be qualified to be President than someone agree with me on every issue. The fact that you see differently indicates that you have a great deal of political hubris and don't allow for even the slightest chance that you may not be right on every issue. If I wanted someone that agreed with me on every issue I would vote for myself for President, but I don't. I want someone that will be effective, and that really doesn't that much to do with how they see the issue of the sanctity of life.
If there was someone in the race whose experience and accomplishments were even close to that of Rudy's and they saw things more in line with me (George Allen for instance) then I would not be siding with Rudy, however that just isn't the case. His experience and accomplishments dwarf everyone else's, and I simply will not ignore that. You seem to have no problem ignoring what I consider to be the most important things in determining the effectiveness of a President as long as that person sees the world exactly as you do, which is the nature of hubris.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I don't care how effective someone is if that effectiveness is going to be directed towards things like protecting abortion rights and confiscating guns. So long as the guy has a good resume, he could be an unholy combo of Ron Paul on foreign policy, and Hillary Clinton on domestic policy and he's got your vote, apparently. If we are going to elect someone like that, I'd rather he be as ineffective as possible, so he has less chance of doing serious damage.
You can lay off all the insults any time, by the way. That's a better indication of hubris than anything anyone else has said in this thread. It's pretty ironic, really.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I missed what you were talking about in his twelve points of emphasis...
here it is and let me know where confiscating guns and protecting abortion rights is
Again, just because someone agrees with doesn't mean they will be able to implement any of their ideas. If you think Fred will be able to do anything as President, that is a leap of faith. No such leaps are necessary with Rudy, and I generally agree with each of the twelve points he is going to focus.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
then you simply lack an understanding of the depth and magnitude that it takes of accomplishing the job. If you don't think that experience, good experience, and accomplisments in that experience isn't only important, but most important, then with all due respect you just really don't understand what it takes to be a good President. It doesn't much matter what you believe if you can't accomplish your agenda, and if you think that Thompson would be able to accomplish anything, anything, you are just sadly mistaken. He has accomplished nothing of significance in his whole life and now most of you are making the leap that he will accomplish many things of significance in the biggest stage in the world. That is a leap I am not willing to make.
With Rudy I don't have to make that leap.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
I would've voted for Al Gore in 2000. I would've voted for Bill Clinton in 1996. I would vote for Jimmah Carter (who is still eligable for another term) over anybody else. I would vote for Hillary Clinton over the rest of the field, since she already has that 8 years as co-president under her belt. Experience is relevant but it's not the main criteria.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
if you think that being VP is more experience than governing one of the three biggest states, then I am confused. Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia, whereas Gerald Ford was the sitting President, so again, I am confused. Hillary is just asynine. Being the first lady is not actually experience.
Again, it isn't merely experience but what someone did with that experience. See, I firmly believe that Rudy will govern effectively because he has shown in eight years governing that he can govern effectively. Before that he showed he could prosecute effectively, and after that he showed that he could manage effectively. Do you see a pattern here? What is the pattern with Thompson. He has accomplished nothing and now some of you want to give him the biggest responsibility in the world. I think that is just plain nuts.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
Which is why I have never said that Rudy would be a pathetic president. He may well be a pretty decent president and, as there is a fair chance he might be in that office, I hope he would be. I just don't agree with him on enough issues of high importance to me to be able to support him.
Really, Hunter is my pick. Thompson is just my current choice of the major candidates, but Romney is there, too.
No, I was not comparing Giuliani and Hitler. In fact, I wasn't even referring to Giuliani there. Since you keep referring to those two characteristics as the highest qualifications for the office, I was merely saying that leadership and effectiveness by themselves are not enough. That was an honest disclaimer there at the end, but I guess you can believe it or not as you choose.
Character flaws aside, I think he'll appoint just the kinds of judges he says he will: so-called strict constructionists who can take Roe or leave it, either way.
Whereas I think Presidents like GW Bush and Reagan preferred anti-Roe judges, even if Reagan failed on half the time (given that his REAL picks were Rehnquist for CJ, Scalia, O'Connor, and Bork, though the Ds made him settle for Kennedy on that last one).
There is no evidence that Giuliani is just a "pragmatic" economic conservative. He cut taxes over and over in New York city and even as revenues boomed he kept spending in control, far, far better than Bush has done as President. His economic advisor is Steve Forbes and every proposal he has made in this campaign is economically conservative. I'm not sure why you consider him just a pragmatist, but isn't strict economic conservatism pragmatic anyway? It's economic liberalism that puts emotions and income equality ahead of economic growth. There is a reason the New York Times and liberal media always hated him.
"He’s pro-choice; he’s pro-gay-marriage; he’s a public cross-dresser; he’s an innovator in the sanctuary city usurpation;"
He is not pro-gay-marriage and I can't believe anyone honestly cares about him wearing a dress on an SNL skit. You're just reaching for ways to bash him. If you would rather stay home instead of vote for Giuliani because he's pro-choice just say so, but that still would be a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton.