How Redstate has convinced me NOT to support Rudy Giuliani

By Thorley Winston Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Reading through the comments on the presidential threads (I’ve only read about half of the billion or so that have popped) up when I see conservatives debating whether or not they could support Rudy Giuliani in the primary, I’ve noticed a lot of common themes:

“I could support Giuliani but only if he picks a conservative running mate (and/or let’s his VP pick the judicial nominees)”

“I could support Giuliani but only if he says that Roe versus Wade was bad law and should be overturned.”

“I could support Giuliani but only if he promises to get tough on illegal immigration and repudiates his prior support for making New York a “shield city.”

“I could support Giuliani but only if he comes out against gun control and repudiates his support for the assault weapons ban, the Brady Bill, and the lawsuits he filed against the gun industry.”

“I could support Giuliani but only if he supports . . . “

You notice a trend? A lot of people who say that they could support Rudy Giuliani (and many who say that they are supporting Giuliani) are doing so on the expectation that he will promise to do something that is pretty much the opposite of what he’s actually done as Mayor or have asked him in effect to repudiate his previously stated beliefs.

The problem with that approach is twofold – first you aren’t really supporting the candidate but the candidate that you wish was in front of you. In which case, who really is it that you think you’re voting for>

And second, if you have a hope or expectation that he really is a different person than who he is, any promises he makes (or you think he’s making) such as appointing “strict constructionists” to the court really isn’t the promise you think he’s making – but rather the promise you wish he was making.

One of the best pieces of advice my mother ever gave me about marriage was “don’t marry a person expecting to change them.” If you support Rudy Giuliani as he actually is and not with the expectation that he’s different than who he is then I wish you best of luck. But if you’re considering voting for Giuliani because you expect him to do anything different or at least promise to act differently, then I am afraid you are setting yourself up for a nasty divorce.

recomended.

"Any love letter is incomplete without a Ronald Reagan quote"
--my sophomore year roommate

That would explain why you think others shouldn't vote for Giuliani. But why did those quotes make you decide not to vote for him? To spare others disappointment?

. . . because they made me realize that I don’t see much about Giuliani that I do support. Yes he was great in coordinating first responders post-9/11 and says most of the right things but that doesn’t really making him any more hawkish than any of the other serious candidates (I don’t consider Luger or Paul to be serious candidates). He cut taxes but if he had to get a bailout from the State of New York, relied on pork from Washington DC, and left the city in greater debt than we he found it, it reminds me a little too much of how (now Senator) Norm Coleman handled Saint Paul as Mayor in order to launch his political career.

What this made me realize is that if I were to support Giuliani, it would have to be a much different Giuliani than I see before me now. That doesn’t mean that he’s a bad guy or a Rino, it just means that he doesn’t appear to be the candidate that I would want as my president in 2008.

I accept and have often said on this site that political participation in inherently an act of compromise because the only candidate who agrees with you 100% is the one you see in the mirror when you’re brushing your teeth. From what I know of Giuliani, I mostly disagree with him on issues that are important to me. To support him because I think he’s promised me that he’s really different or will do things differently would be based on the worst kind of lie.

The kind we make to ourselves.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

I actually didn't see your point until you wrote the above post, though, and that very well may be due to my obtuseness.

I have plenty of time to ponder these points between now and the 2008 primaries. Currently, I'm leaning more towards Giuliani because he has the most executive experience of the declared candidates.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Yeah, maybe Giuliani has the most executive experience because he spent 8 years as Mayor to Romney's 4 years as Governor (and McCain's 0 years as anything executive). But you also need to review the KIND of experience. A Mayor has very different responsibilities than a Governor. Mayors are by their nature immersed in little details - like making sure the streets get cleared after a snowstorm and the garbage gets collected, and the police department is running smoothly and responding to the right neighborhoods. Their "micromanagement" issues, and things that have no place in the White House.

In my mind it would be like looking at two candidates to be CEO of IBM - one has spent 10 years as the manager of a McDonalds and the other has spent 5 years running the opertaions of a small business with several outlets. Yeah the first guy has more "management experience" but that doesn't mean that he's the best choice to be CEO.

This may be why Mayors don't jump to the oval office. They don't have the most relevant experience to prepare them for the kind of things that the President has to deal with.

Just about anyone would be better than Sam Palmisano. Ugh.

:-)

Mayors are by their nature immersed in little details - like making sure the streets get cleared after a snowstorm and the garbage gets collected, and the police department is running smoothly and responding to the right neighborhoods.

Well, first of all, many of those things were not exactly happening when Rudy took the job...look, New York City has more people and a bigger budget than a number of states. It has the UN. It has a 50,000-man police force. It's an insanely complicated job. A better comparison would be to compare the CEO of a small private software company to, say, the head of operations for a large airline. The first guy may have a fancier title, but the second guy has a more serious job.

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

NYC is a very busy place, while it's possible for a governor to enjoy a slow day once in a while. I'm sure Romney's up to the job of president but Giuliani's experience as NYC mayor is closer to the daily demands of the presidency.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

That’s a good point in Rudy’s favor although I wonder if the structure of how a governor operates might be a bit closer to that of the presidency than a mayorship. I always had the impression that the way NYC is run might be closer to a large federal department like DOD, DOJ, or Homeland Security which I would certainly not rule Giuliani out.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

is probably closer to that of the presidency than a governorship, I'd imagine.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I don't know how to measure stress levels. I'm not a Romney supporter, but I would imagine that Gov. Romney's four years involved plenty of stress.

I can't be a hypocrite and say I dislike Bill Clinton for cheating on Hillary while at the same time supporting Giuliani, who cheated on his ex-wife Donna Hanover.

was the least of my reasons for not approving of Bill Clinton's leadership.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

And a firm believer in God and morality and the commandments.

Bill Clinton's other faults damaged more lives than his infidelity.

Back to the thread, at least Giuliani has had all of his dirt thoroughly aired and probably doesn't have any more to put us through in the primary season. I couldn't tell you if he ever asked for forgiveness for such misdeeds.

I would agree that Romney is probably the cleanest candidate, politically. As much as we like Newt Gingrich, he has some pretty sordid character issue episodes, too, and you can expect those to come out if he enters the race.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

. . . scare me away from supporting a candidate who I truly believed was the best for the job. I will admit (my half-serious comments about Clinton’s taste in mistresses aside) though that all things being equal I would prefer someone with a stable loving marriage but it isn’t enough of deal-breaker that I would refuse to support a candidate who had been divorced or had committed adultery.

I think Newt is great in a lot of ways. He does have some things in his past which people will be reminded of and would have to deal with them. Although it might be worth if it he went up against Senator Clinton in a presidential debate and said “you remember what my mom said I said about you? It goes double!” ;)

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

before a sitting president reflects the reality many of us live. With America's divorce rate at 51% and rising, and more single people losing all illusions about love and fidelity, sooner or later we'll have a president without a spouse at all.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

We've already had a President without a spouse

I wonder if 9/11 would have happened had President Clinton's poor character wouldn't have led to Ken Starr, Paula Jones, and impeachment wasting countless hours of time in the White House.

Run like Reagan!

Although in the interests of full disclosure, I was one of those who was opposed the Whitewater investigation, think that Judge Ken Starr would have been a terrific Supreme Court appointment (but accepting the IC assignment was the kiss of death) but once we learned that President Clinton had committed perjury and tampered with witnesses in a federal civil rights lawsuit (albeit one I thought never should have been brought), I supported his impeachment even though it hurt Republicans politically (leading to the “compassionate conservatism” we see today) and had they succeeded would have made Gore the next President of the United States.

The lesson from this is politically-motivated investigations have a way of backfiring and we should have just let it go.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

I also have great respect for Ken Starr's abilities. To his credit, he personally thought the Independent Counsel law was unconstitutional, effectively creating a fourth branch of government accountable to no one.

as symptomatic of his larger problems.

eliminate Gingrich (cheated) and McCain (divorce) as well.

Guess you're voting for Romney or one of the lessers.

. . . wearing those tacky “short-shorts” that exposed his flabby white thighs while jogging and the fact that even though he was President of the United States, he couldn’t do better than Monica Lewinsky?

JFK was sleeping with Marilyn Monroe who even today is regarded as a goddess and Angie Dickinson. How pathetic is it that this was the best that Clinton could do?

That, more than anything else about the Lewinsky affair, is what brought shame on our country.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Well, Eleanor Mondale was pretty hot. And Sharon Stone doesn't go out of her way to deny her involvement with the executive branch.

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Cheating on Hillary and welfare reform were the only two things he did that I approved of. Decisions like marrying her in the first place are why I disapproved of most of his decisions.

Cheating on Hillary and welfare reform were the only two things he did that I approved of. Decisions like marrying her in the first place are why I disapproved of most of his presidency.

aside from the religious implications. And aside from the fact that Clinton was impeached not for infidelity but for lying under oath. The big problem with Clinton and Monica is that a sitting president could have been blackmailed by our enemies because of this affair. This is why potential CIA agents are questioned about their personal lives so strongly.

Molon Labe!

I’ll just say this for the record, while I know many of us have a low opinion of former President Clinton; I truly believe that had someone tried to blackmail him over an affair, he would not compromise the security of the nation. I’m not saying he would have come forth but based on his behavior during the impeachment, I believe he would have continued to deny it happened even if it showed up on YouTube ;)

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

if someone says Clinton was impeached "for lying about sex." Perjury is about lying, not the lie itself.

These same people have offered no defense whatsoever for Scooter Libby, who is being prosecuted for honestly mistaken recollection.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

More then likely a Rapist and serial sex offender. I for one do not approve of adultery and would never condone it. But this man took woman he did not just cheat on his wife. The evidence of this is over whelming. Comparing him to Rudy is absurd.

Rudy as he is will be a fine candidate and a fine President of the United States.

He's got the experience and the right priorities. This will become clear during the campaign and it's interesting that he's pulling away from the field already (12 pt lead over McCain) even at this early stage.

He is a conservative who can get Democrats and Independents to vote for him.

Wait till people find out he's only slightly more conservative than Lincoln Chafee.

I'd support Lieberman because of the war.

Win the War First! Then you can get back to squabbling with yourselves over social policy.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

If it came down to Joe Lieberman versus Chuck Hagel. Other than Hagel, all the candidates are for winning the war.

When as Rudy Guiliani ever cast a public vote or made an executive decision to wage war?

And how will splitting the Republican party in two, by stabbing large factions of the party in the back, help us win the war?

Run like Reagan!

Almost immediately after the attack ("Almost" because he was a little busy for a few days) and has never strayed from it.

As for the "Party", I couldn't care less. America's survival comes first.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

This is not to say that I see RG as the be all end all of presidential candidates for 2008.
I am merely staking out a position that as of Right Now I support him over the other options. When/if someone better comes along, I'll go for them.

The Ds are absolute nogos for me because of their treatment of the military.
McCain has only proven consistent in stabbing the troops in the back since the war started.
Romney is even less consistent and was quite apparently too afraid to run for reelection.
As for the rest of the Rs: Who? (though I am watching Brownback closely because he sounds good, but has no real chance of being elected at this time. In 18 months? Like I said, I'm watching him).

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

"He is a conservative who can get Democrats and Independents to vote for him."

I'll agree that he can get Democrats and Independents to vote for him, but it is precisely because he isn't conservative that they will do so.

Where does this idea that he is conservative come from? Being conservative on one or two issues doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you a moderate or more sane liberal.

The RealClearPolitics average of many polls now has Rudy ahead of McCain by 14.8, pts.

This goes through February 19, so it is piping hot polling information. T

he well-respected Quinnipiac poll (one of the components of the RCP average) has Rudy ahead of McCain by 22 pts!

I hesitate to name Mayor Giuliani the frontrunner based on polls so early. At this point before the last election, in 2003, Senator Lieberman was regularly at the top of Democratic polls.

He's in SC tonight describing the events which propelled him to the title of 'America's Mayor' as if 9/11 had been last week.
His fan base can't get enough ofcourse. But the rest of us want to hear him stop replaying his heroism and move forward to a grasp of what our country needs now.
His narration of 9/11 is riveting but his passion fades when he's asked to deal with current issues.

I pulled into a store yesterday and another car pulled in beside me, on his rear window was one of those 9/11 never forget stickers and I was instantly struck with anger. In part I think my reaction is from the discussion here at Redstate, now before anyone blows a gasket let me explain how that fits into a Rudy discussion...

For one thing it seems that not a day goes by without there being an attack on the president for some perceived failing or weakness, the president who quietly nullified North Korea's ability to conduct banking transactions across the world, where according to what I've read this is the main reason they are at the bargaining table. The same pressure is being applied to Iran, quietly, and I have in the past linked to articles detailing the implications and long term effects of those measures. I bring this up because Rudy has been steadfast in his support of our president and nuanced in his defense of those policies by my recollection.

Rudy is on point when he talks about the number one issue facing us, we are at war. For me he says all the right things in regard to that. The rest of it is fluff, when the house is on fire what's important?

We are at war and the only question is where are we going to fight the majority of the war? I have no doubt that we will be struck again, but the issue is how much damage are we willing to let them do? Do we concede a city? A portion of the country to nuclear fallout?

Yes we lost our way as a party it seems, last years elections should serve as a wake up call to get back on course. I say weed out the corrupt of both parties, put them in jail, it's time to fix congress, way past time for it to be an actual voice of the people and not what it's become... As a law and order guy Rudy can help with this discussion as well.

As a man who watched people jump from burning buildings to escape their fate on 9/11, as a man who saw through his own eyes of the damage done by airplanes packed with fuel and flown into buildings packed with innocent people, I believe Rudy will fight the fight we need. Not only against the left wing and the media but the actual enemy, the ones who wish us dead.

Is a possible abortion such a threat that your living children and family should be sacrificed for ideals? I hate abortion as much as anyone but my five children mean so much more.

It's beyond me that so many can't see the house is on fire...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

because of a war that we very well may never completely win. The threat will go up and down, but how do you completely defeat an enemy that is willing to commit suicide to kill you. It seems very impractical that we will kill everyone that might end up being a terrorist someday. I even remember Bush making the Gaffe of saying that the war could not be won.
We are being asked to ignore everything in the nation but the war. If we do we will have allowed the terrorists to destroy our culture.

. . . over the last five years we’ve seen it used to justify everything from Medicare Part D, earmark abuse, returning crappy incumbents to Congress because they’ll vote for Republicans to keep the leadership, Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee (to say nothing of how other qualified nominees like Michael Luttig who were more in favor of federalism than Alito or Roberts but were passed over because they didn’t subscribe to the “unitary executive theory”), and pretty much anything and everything that Republicans in Congress and the administration wanted from us or wanted us to let them get away with.

No more.

The days of conservatives gritting their teeth and meekly getting in line because we’re told “it’s for the War” died last November.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Amen! by JPV

TW, I couldn't agree with you more. Using the "GWOT" or Iraq War as a justification for things has become to the GOP, what "for the children" has meant to the Democrats. I am a solid supporter of fighting terrorism and a real believer in the threats that are out there. But, if I had a dollar for every time it was used as an excuse, I'd retire to a tropical island.

how do you completely defeat an enemy that is willing to commit suicide to kill you

The same way we beat Imperial Japan?

P.S. your account name is self-contradictory.

Run like Reagan!

Look up Giuliani's position on abortion. Ok, you already know what's been told to you. He thoroughly believes in the "woman's right to choose." Fine.

Now take a look at what he will be able to do about it as POTUS: Appoint judges.

Now take a look at his position on judges: Strict supporters of the Constitution as written (I don't remember what those are called).

What is your problem with Giuliani again?

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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