Redstate

Rudy is better suited to deal with post-9/11 foreign policy than probably anyone else. He is fully capable to take strong action, instead of falling into the appeasement state of mind. Islamofascism needs to be killed off before it acquires nuclear weapons, and that's not going to be done by consulting lawyers.

...............................................
"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 and how you do it."
-Rudy Giuliani

Thomas Jefferson had an illegitimate child with a slave. JFK was a serial womanizer. How many ex president's personal lives do I need to mention?

The Dems will bring up Rudy's personal life as they run Hillary. You think the general public is going to appreciate that sort of gutter politics. ARe you saying that how you treat your wife is any reflection on how you will be President? Because if you are, all those same people that would do that to Rudy wouldn't vote for Hillary either. What you are doing is justification. If you really believe that Rudy is a non starter because of the way he treated his ex wives, then frankly, you have an awfully high and unrealistic bar for your candidate.

If you are saying that the way he treated his ex wives is something the Dems would be able to use, then with all due respect you are politically tone deaf.

It sounds like you disagree with Rudy on some issues that are important to you. That is the real reason that you think he is a non starter, and everything in your post is nothing more than a red herring.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

This party spent the 9 years going on and on and on about how Character Counts for the Presidency.

Were you arguing that President Clinton's character wasn't a factor? Would you do so now, given that his poor character with respect to interns damaged his administration's ability to fight Al Qaeda?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

however if the only people that could govern were those that treated their better half with utmost respect, half our founding fathers wouldn't have been in government. Character counts, however if you are saying that anyone that treated his prior relationships poorly is now no longer fit to serve, we don't have very many people fit to serve.

I don't much care how he treated his wife. I didn't much care how Clinton treated his wife. Cheating on her in the oval office and lying about it was reckless and that is what I cared about. Again, Jefferson slept with a slave and had a child. Back then that was exponentially more scandalous than anything Rudy has done. What you are saying with the high minded character counts, is that Jefferson, in your opinion, was not fit to serve. Benjamin Franklin was a well known womanizer. Was he unfit to serve as well? JFK was such a serial womanizer that it was reckless. He used to have women filtering through the WH almost non stop. Was he unfit to serve?

Presidents aren't saints and they don't need to be to be effective. So, while it is not a good thing that Rudy treated prior wives poorly, to say that it makes him unfit to serve, is frankly an awfully high bar to set.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

Thomas Jefferson was no hero to me; holding him up as having poor character only AIDS my point, from my perspective. He was only able to sweep into power thanks to mass immigration and easy citizenship, which of course the President Adams tried to clamp down on...

As for JFK, I don't think we really know if he'd ahve been any good or not, but I don't think a drug-addicted womanizer would have been the best guy to have leading us in Vietnam, no sir I don't.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

wife and kids, he also gave an unqualified mistress (Christine Lategano) a city job? When Rudy was dating Judy while he was still married, Donna Hanover had to go to court to get the Mayor's mansion declared the marital home to keep him from moving Judy in there with their kids.

Do you really think the obvious, over the top, and, yes, crazy behaviour that Rudy engaged in in New York is appropriate for someone seeking the highest office in the land? It certainly will make a mockery of the phrase "restoring dignity to the White House."

Of course it will become a campaign issue. The only Rudy most voters now know is the 9/11 Rudy. The rest will be a rude awakening.

The rumors of Rudy's affair with Ms. Lategano were never substantiated. Repeating the rumors doesn't make them true.

She was his press advisor. There were thousands of daggers out for Rudy during his tenure as mayor of NYC. One should be able to understand why a Republican mayor might be the target of such attacks in NYC.

So, if you're willing to take liberal slander as fact you might believe this accusation to be true. It would comparable to accepting as fact the liberal slander that Bobby Jindal is now governor of Louisiana because the George Bush ordered "ethnic cleansing" of New Orleans following Katrina.

Utter hogwash.

the press buying a SKIRT for a mayoral aide, the
"alleged" in "alleged mistress" is somewhat
laughable.

REMOVING the skirt than buying one.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

n/t

a prosecution exhibit, which puts Rudy way up the ladder from slick Willy.

In today's world? I love Romney's wholesome family. He was my first choice until Hillary became the likely choice Dem choice.

Rudy's messy family issues are well known. Donna Hanover was on Oprah talking about it all (with her new husband) awhile back. I've personally known women who were devasted by cheating husbands. It's dispicable. I certainly wouldn't want that for my four daughters.

But we are deciding on the best person to defend our country. That is #1. And #2 is who gets to nominate judges. Should we say no sinners need apply? I'd love to have better role models in sports, hollywood, in every walk of life. Look at some teachers, pastors and priests.

We were lucky to have had wholesome families with George and Laura Bush, Carters, Nixons, Fords, but Johnson, Kennedy and Clinton chased women. Ronald Reagan was divorced and had family issues with his children. His was a great presidency because he could read the enemy and forcely fought to bring down communism.

Winning this election may have a trivial ring, but it truly is about how our country will move forward against today's enemy. Rudy's a law and order prosecutor who lived through 9/11 and I think he'll be the most vocal and the best to fight the battle.
=============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

life maybe well known in NY, but it certainly is
not in the rest of the United States.

I knew the whole story before Oprah, but no one gets much bigger audience. Donna Hanover told the whole thing. She also told her very happy story about her new husband.

You said people don't know Rudy's messy life. I'm just saying that in this day and age, it is well known.
============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

with Rudy's marital messiness. In this world of 24 hour news cycles and so many venues blathering on about everybody's personal lives, I'd be willing to bet that most people out there who are even slightly interested in politics know about Rudy's missteps in that arena. Maybe not all the details, but enough to get the general idea.

you are reading RedState you are MORE politically aware than the average bear.

But even if everyone KNOWS what Rudy has done, should the Republican party risk looking like being hypocrits for nine years for criticizing the Clintons about their personal lives?

And, I really DON'T want a discussion about how Bill is really so much worse than Rudy. Puhleaze.

RedState, but I knew about Giuliani before 9/11, before reading RedState, before being anywhere near as politically informed as I think I am now. And, no, I did not mean to get into the whole "If he's not as bad as Bill, then he's okay." It was just a joke about the skirt thing, sorry.

I understand the objections about Rudy from social conservatives, I know they are valid points, and I agree that I would rather not vote for him. But I CANNOT stand by and watch another Clinton be inaugurated if it's in my power to help to prevent it. Saying that she would only be there for 4 years is just dreaming out loud; saying that she and Rudy are pretty much the same is just nuts; and imagining that THAT WOMAN couldn't bring this country anything other than socialism and moral equivalency, further ruin to family values, more destruction to the notion of God in public life, and massive exits from our military members who would have no desire to have her for CinC--sorry, words just fail me at this point.

As for sex & Rudy vs Bill, the former left behind one pissed-off but happily remarried ex in Donna Hanover, who is an extremely successful career woman in her own right.

The latter left behind a string of used and possibly abused women, some of whom his operatives tried to smear, and some of whom were in none-too-comfortable financial circumstances.

the ex-wife whom you publically humiliate with your behavior manages to remarry, you're off the hook? Better tell Rudy's kids that since it doesn't look like they are buying it.

JUUSST KIDDING!!!!!! Oprah's audience seemed well aware though.

You won't catch me defending or excusing either Clinton or Rudy. And if Rudy says anything about Judy being his soulmate, I'll barf. That's *classic* cheat-speak from the women I've known who've gone through this. Don't think I condone cheating.

As stated in a post above, all Presidents have not had wholesome family lives. We'd all like perfect people in the WH, but that is the way life is.

Republicans for the most part are good family people. I wish that I had the confidence in another candidate to fight the GWOT and also beat Hillary in this election.

As far as risking being called hypocrits, the Dems and MSM do that everyday regardless.
============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

which did not prevent him from implementing his successful reform program in NYC or dealing with 9/11. Because his marital difficulties were private, although nothing is truly private for people embedded in celebrity culture, as a famous couple like Rudy and Donna Hanover surely were. Just ask Prince Charles!

Clinton's problem was that he impeded a lawsuit by encouraging perjury. The Clinton machine went after women who dared to speak up. While they were preoccupied with these things, Al-Qaeda grew like a tumor.

That's the difference between Clinton and Rudy, Prince Charles, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston et al.

If I ever get financially independent, perhaps it may be time for my historical opus: "While Clinton Slept".

Again, testing showed that it is almost impossible for him to have been the father. It was probably his nephew, which can't be blamed on him. I know you like Giuliani, but don't run down other presidents just so you can feel better about him.

I admire Jefferson, but his improvidential financial management, spending copiously on things he couln't afford, gave him far less scope to free slaves than Washington had.

I have a lot of respect for Jefferson for some of his work and though, but I am not a really big fan. The whole French Revolution angle is enough, by itself.

about DNA. That is ridiculous. Am I wrong about JFK? How about Benjamin Franklin? Was I wrong about him as well. My point is plenty of ex Presidents were anything but saints in their personal lives, and that didn't stop them from being effective Presidents. Smearing Rudy with an impossible standard that most wouldn't even hold for some of our founding fathers is unfair.

Here is what I get, and all of you can correct me if I am wrong. There are those that have a vsceral negative reaction to Rudy. There are many reasons that this may happen so listing them is unnecessary, but abortion is probably at the top of the list. Some of you are shocked that he continues to lead despite whatever shortfalls you find in him. As a result, you begin to hold him to standards you wouldn't hold anyone else. For instance, Newt also cheated on his wife and his liasson was not very pretty either, but I didn't hear many of you discount him as a candidate as a result. You are finding things to consider him a non starter for because you have an issue that for you is a non starter.

To me that is unfair. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for someone that is pro choice just say so, but don't say that his three ex wives make him unfit to be President, because they don't. He had plenty of personal problems while he managed the city of New York as among the greatest mayors of all time.

Cheating on your wife is a despicable act. I condemn it in the strongest terms, however it is not something that is any of my business. I judge a presidential candidate by their resume so to speak. Rudy's is the strongest and it isn't even close.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

That was hardly my fault. Franklin wasn't president. JFK wasn't in office long enough to know anything really, but probably he wasn't really qualified, either.

Mike, I have never said that Rudy isn't qualified because of his marriages. I don't like that, but that isn't the point. It also isn't my biggest problem with him and I never claimed such to be the case. I just don't like to see you using a revisionist history statement to excuse those problems.

Had he not, and were he not a liberal, he would probably be regarded as one of the lesser Presidents. The whole Bay of Pigs fiasco led to the Missile Crisis. He started the war in Vietnam that Johnson only escalated. So, yes we have our first data point that promiscuity correlates with bad policy in office.

As has already been pointed out, Franklin was never President. In fact, I'm hard pressed to direct you to an elected office he won. His important positions were all appointed as far as I recall.

Jefferson - Actual science will tell you they can't answer the question about whether the Hemmingway line descends from Thomas, only that it is highly likely someone from the family did. Jefferson had no male heirs, so there is no DNA against which to test. Science can say it is plausible because of the DNA testing they have done but they will also tell you it is plausible that it was a close relation of Thomas as well. I don't recall enough of the details on the slave issue, but those times were different. We don't have to like them, but we do have to recognize that it would be another 87 years before the issue would really come to a head, and even then it took a war to settle it.

Newt - Yes, I like Newt's ideas. Yes, he treated his wife badly. No, I did not discount that in considering him for the position. And while I might be willing to vote for him despite that, I certainly conceded at all points that there were many who would not.

The treatment of his wife isn't the problem - it's a symptom of the problem. Just like his suing the federal government to prevent the line item veto is a symptom of the problem, and his PERSONAL donations to NARAL et al is another symptom of the problem. The problem is: He isn't conservative, he only looks like a right-leaning moderate because he governed in NYC where common sense practices the rest of the country takes for granted were dangerously radical right-wing ideas.

The only way Rudy makes sense, is if you are already conceding the rest of congress to the Dems for at least the next 4, and possibly 8 years. Then arguing for someone who can fight them toe to toe with the same in your face tactics they use has some heft behind it. I won't concede that, and neither should anyone else.

disqualifies them from being conservative?

-imwithfred-

==== 13 ====

Obviously context matters, so merely being married three times tells you little but the way the relationships played out can tell you a lot about somebody - and the wya Giulani treated the mother of his children and his children throughthe very public divorce was appaling. Quite frankly, if that doesn't disqualify someone from the position than I can think of no character issue that would - and I like my leaders to have character.

Just listen to the man talk. Yes, he drives a hard bargain, and that might not help a marriage very much. But it sure is what you want from someone who will deal with monstrosities like Iran and North Korea. It's also the mark of one who gets things done.

And might I add that he went through his personal difficulties while he was mayor of NYC. They didn't prevent him from doing an excellent job at the time, so why should they now?

...............................................
"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 and how you do it."
-Rudy Giuliani

many many times over the years. He plays a great tough cop, good enofrcer or strong man - that does not mean he has the right character to be a leader of the country. And if you don't think his saga with his wife did not detract from his ability to manage the city government than you must not have been in NYC.

right now to enforce the right policies. The next POTUS will have to deal not only with the Islamo-fascists (as if they weren't bad enough), but with all the leftists as well; who may well remain in control of Congress. Giuliani and Romney are the only ones who have experience getting things done despite a leftist majority and let's admit it, Rudy achieved more against worse odds.

As for character, if being strong and tough is not part of character then I don't know what is. Those are definitely qualities I want in a leader, and not necessarily being romantic and lovey-dovey. In fact, people who really put their all into their work, like Rudy does, often have their marriages suffer as a consequence.

...............................................
"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 and how you do it."
-Rudy Giuliani

Is not the opposite of romantic and lovey-dovey.

Its one thing to have a marriage suffer and end in divorce because you dedicate yourself to other oursuits, its another to humiliate the woman in teh process and alienate your children - that is not the signs of beign strong and tough it is callous and malicious. And if you honestly think those traits help some as a leader than I can only surmise that you have not been in many dynamic situations that call for good leadership.

As for the statement that Giulianni and Romney are the only ones with experience getting things done - well that pretty silly. Thompson, Huckabee and McCain all have lots of experience in various aspects of leaderships and long losts of accomplishments.

strong and tough was opposite to romantic and lovey-dovey. You are spinning my words. What I said was that the former are qualities the US needs in a leader right now, and the latter aren't. If you want to get into this, it is you who implied that strong and tough aren't traits of character.

But let me tell you something. Leadership shows through, especially when a man has been running a huge organization for years. Conjugal relations are about the daily interaction between a man and his wife. Unless you were in their inner circle, one of their closest friends, you will only get a partial and very wrong impression from news conferences.

And still that is totally irrelevant, because you are not hiring Rudy to wed America, you are hiring him to lead us. Great leaders might have flaws, but they are still great leaders and should be recognized as such. Napoleon did divorce Josephine, you know.

...............................................
"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 and how you do it."
-Rudy Giuliani

Rudy advocated for tax payer funding of abortion during this campaign. That places him in the social liberal category.

The thing I find funnny is that fiscal conservatives want the social conservatives to stay on the reservation if he wins the nomination.

But would economic conservatives be ok with a socially conservative socialist as the GOP nominee?

n/t

Bush was a fiscal moderate. Not a fiscal liberal. He pushed through a massive Capital Gains tax cut and a modest income tax cut. This needs to be viewed along with his spendthrift policies.

Giuliani is no social moderate. He is a social liberal. That's the difference.

this is the sort of smear job that is prevalent on the blogosphere vis a vis Rudy Giuliani. He reached out to the liberal party because he needed to build a coalition and the liberal party was a better fit than the Democrats. You hold that against him. The fact is that there was no way he was going to govern effectively being the type of Conservative you would accept. That wasn't going to happen in New York. He endorsed Cuomo because he thought he was going to win and it would make their relationship easier to manage. Again, that is called governing, something Fred Thompson hasn't done. All of you Rudy detractors fail to put his political career in the context of governing a city with a legislature that was over ninety percent Democrat. You seem to think that he could actually have driven non stop Conservative ideas down a ninety percent Democratic legislature and accomplished anything. When you think about the amazing Conservative policies that enacted while mayor of New York and understand just how liberal the legislature he worked with was, then you will appreciate just how truly Conservative Rudy is.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

because I am apparently too dumb to understand. You say that he was forced to govern in a more liberal way because he had to work with Dems and he couldn't do what he would have liked to do. Fine, I'm with you there, which is why I don't hold certain parts of his record against him.

Now explain how those Democrats forced him to take sides on seemingly pet issues for him. Again, I will go back to RKBA. He could have governed without a strong push for gun control. He could have worked with the left by ignoring guns completely. He didn't have to take it on himself to sue firearms manufacturers - the city council didn't "force" him to do that, did they? His statement on tax-payer funded abortions. If he meant it, he is highly wrong. If he didn't mean it, and just said it because of political pressure, then he must be a flip-flopper and isn't of the character you claim. Can you explain these problems to me so I can support him too?

I will probably still vote for him over Hillary, but it will be of the lowest enthusiasn possible. I would like to be a bit happier with that choice, so if you can help, I would appreciate it.

you can take his position or you can leave it. He walked into a city that was some crime ridden that it was "ungovernable". He had a comprehensive plan to deal with the crime problem. That plan worked. Gun control was a small piece of that plan. It may very well be that gun control had nothing to do with solving the crime problem, and that is fine. No one can doubt his effectiveness as a crime stopper. He felt that there were too many people in the city of New York to allow everyone to pack heat. Again, you can take that position or you can leave it. What you cannot argue about is his effectiveness overall as a crime stopper. He turned that entire city around.

He did a lot of governing as mayor and it leaves him to be scrutinized quite a lot. Once you have a long paper trail so to speak, it leaves you opne to a great deal of criticism. You can nit pick at everything you find wrong with him or you can look at the other side like me.

He was among the greatest, the greatest, federal prosecutors of all time. That is not up for debate. He convicted almost the entire mafia in his area.

Then, he was among the greatest mayors of all time. That is also not up for debate except for the really extreme that would also question Reagan's effectiveness as a President. Now, to me, that is a pattern. If you choose to ignore such remarkable achievements because you find a few issues out of a whole lot of issues that you disagree with him on, that is your problem. I will not ignore that kind of a remarkable record. Effectiveness and leadership are the two most important traits in a President and there is no debate about who has the most of both of those.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

in defending Giuliani. I wish I could agree. Its just a matter of different priorities.

however, if you choose to not vote or vote for a third party candidate in the general election that is totally not qualified then I believe that is kind of ridiculous. You don't need to support him in the primaries however if he wins and you don't that is just plain suicide.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

... that the only thing that matters is the 2008 election.

If you believe that electing a social liberal will destroy the center-right coalition over the long term, then the smartest thing you can do would be to ensure that he loses in 2008.

1. Rudy marched in the gay pride parade.

2. Rudy advocated for tax payer funding of abortion. He also supports it for members of his own family: "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]."

3. He pushed for a commuter tax.

4. "Vouchers would be a terrible mistake because they would bleed the public schools of needed financing" -- New York Times, August 15, 1995

5. He supported an expansion of rent control in NYC.

6. "When I ran for Mayor both times, I was asked very, very often to do the following: Pledge that you will never raise taxes. I refused to do that. Pledge that you will lower taxes. I refused to do that." NY Times, Oct. 30 1994

7. He left NYC with more than 1,000 more city employees than when he started and grew the budget by 25 percent from 1997 to 2001.

8. Even when he takes credit for conservative things, such as welfare reform -- it's credit that should go to someone else -- i.e. congress.

So , again, you think it's a smear to illustrate his record. And it's smart on your part to just believe that he will govern as a conservative? That's the triumph of faith over experience.

that every prominent liberal hates him. That is why I know he will govern as a conservative. Here is what the Club For Growth said about his economic policies.

Mayor Giuliani's economic record is not perfect, but he deserves credit for the remarkable nature of his accomplishments," Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said. "In a city long accustomed to high taxes and ballooning budgets, Rudy Giuliani successfully cut taxes; kept spending below the growth of inflation and population; instituted sweeping welfare reform; privatized and deregulated many aspects of the city's bulky bureaucracy; and fought aggressively for school choice.

That is a strong endorsement of his economic policies. His law and order policies are unquestionably Conservative. He has a proven history of governing as a small government conservative. His entire judicial staff is Strict Constructionists. His entire foreign policy staff is NeoCons. Again, you take his governance totally out of context when you fail to understand what happens when you govern in New York.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

And you show that political naivete amongst the right knows no limit.

You can't just dismiss his left-wing tendancies so easily.

He had to take a position on vouchers and rent control? He had to march in the gay parade? He has refused to take the ATR tax pledge. He's telling us to just trust him.

Right, I don't know how much more "compassionate conservatism" -- i.e. Big Government Conservatism -- this country can afford.

but if you read the CFG quote you would have seen that in their opinion he governed as a small government conservative and that he was a champion of school choice. He didn't have to do anything however if you expected him to take consistent conservative position without ever throwing a bone to the ultra liberal legislature, then you just know what it means to govern.

Again, since he has a long track record he has plenty to look at it and it allows people like you to pick at scabs. For instance, you are just fascinated that he marched in a gay pride parade. Who cares? You think as mayor he is not supposed to march in the parade. What does that say as mayor, that if you are gay, then he doesn't represent you. Again, it is simple to be a pure conservative when you don't govern. Once you have to govern you have compromise in order to be effective. If you don't understand that then that is fine, you can vote for someone else who has never governed and go on faith that they will just figure it out.

I am not going on faith. To say that Rudy governed as a large government liberal totally ignores the facts. He didn't. Ready the CFG quote again. He did many things to shrink the size of government in a city that abhorred lessening government in any way.

If you want to be fascinated because he marched in the gay pride parade, then that is your business, I frankly do not care.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

I listed his march in the Gay Pride Parade as one of 8 reasons to oppose him both fiscally and socially. I didn't make that a bigger point than any other. If you want to obsess about it and ignore the fact that he pushed to expand rent control in NYC than go right ahead.

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/

"Rudy is the real fiscal conservative in the race. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget."

"He cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20%—excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom."

"Before Rudy became Mayor, New York City was averaging close to 2,000 murders a year and more than 11,000 major crimes per week. He put more cops on the street and more criminals in jail. He cut crime in half and reduced murders by two-thirds."

"Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion—except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor."

"Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He understands that every law-abiding American has an individual right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deal with a city where crime was out of control, Mayor Giuliani worked to get guns out of the hands of criminals — resulting in a 66% drop in the murder rate and 72% reduction in criminal related shootings."

He did it by a shell game. He shifted those jobs to the federal and state dole. That funding can stop anytime and the city would be stuck again with the bill. That isn't reform. That's an accounting gimmick.

they said he privatized, but I guess you know more than a white paper which is supposed to be among the most well reserached papers created.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

"He found ways to shift a net 9,000 additional city employees into programs funded entirely by state or federal grants – which can always be withdrawn, leaving the city to pick up the tab."

"The bottom line: As of November 2000, the city’s total full-time headcount stood at 253,348 – 1,012 more employees than were on the payroll when Dinkins left office. Indeed, the city’s workforce is as large as it’s ever been."

E.J. McMahon, Manhattan Institute
New York Post, April 13, 2001

I don't care what his website says. He sued a number of firearms manufacturers for, among other things, manufacturing "too many" guns. He supported the 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban and its renewal. He has made several statements, although none in the last couple years that I am aware of, supporting the banning of handguns in general. None of these things were relegated to NYC (and, even if so, they would still be wrong) - he supported gun control nationwide. He wanted my guns. No, I don't trust him on gun control. He has given me no reason to do so.

he had no power to take your guns unless you lived in his city so your point is frivilous. Rudy wouldn't bow down to the Christian Conservatives and reverse field on abortion, but I assume he just bowed down to the NRA when he said that the 2nd amendment was something he believed in.

If every single candidate was scrutinized and picked apart by you the way you are doing it with Rudy, you simply wouldn't vote for anyone. Again, I find the standard you pick with Rudy to be totally unrealistic. I have someone here not wanting to vote for him because he marched in a gay pride parade. Don't all of you think you are just a bit ridiculous the way his record is being hyperanalyzed. We have people not voting for him because of who he endorsed for governor.

If that sort of scrutinization were applied to any candidate they would each be full of holes. Who exactly are you endorsing? Let's put that shoe on another foot.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

You don't think that the mayor of NYC and a current or former member of the Justice Department has any pull when he pushes for national legislation or sues people? If I have to beat on this until you get it, my post above had absolutely nothing to do with NYC politics or laws. These were and are national policies he was advocating. You aren't even looking at the issue. I know it isn't one of your priorities and thats fine, but stop acting like it doesn't exist. Great, so he told the NRA he believes in the Second Amendment - exactly how does that differentiate him from most of the Dems? They would claim the same thing. Is he better than the Dems? Yes, but that ain't exactly high praise.

My two main issues are RKBA and abortion. Both are issues on which he is horrible. Boy, that sure makes me want to vote for him! If he gets the nomination, then I probably will vote for him, but I will do my best to make sure that he doesn't. He would do a great job as a Cabinet member. I do have problems with everyone running - all of them. But I have more problems with Rudy than with almost anyone else.

My real choice would be Duncan Hunter. Since he has no chance of winning, my next pick would be Thompson or Romney, preferably Thompson as long as he shows that he regrets McCain-Feingold.

Rudy may well have sued the gun manufacturers to get New York City onto the same gravy train that many other cities were trying to get on. If all the other cities were going to get tons of money from gun manufacterers New York City might as well get its cut. I don't think it's right but I wouldn't bear a grudge against Rudy for it now.

New York City and State have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and Rudy was smart to use them as part of his toolbox in cutting crime. I don't think it's right that they have restrictive gun laws but it's certainly reasonable that he used them as a tool. The restrictive gun laws were around long before Rudy was.

The assault weapon ban expired. Crime didn't increase. I don't see any effort to bring it back. I don't think we're at serious risk of gun confiscation now. Gore probably lost in 2000 because he didn't support 2nd amendment rights enough. Most democrats are probably willing to leave guns alone now because they don't want to lose more elections.

Rudy says he agrees with the recent court decision that said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right! Excellent!!

The typical liberal wants gun control because he doesn't want criminal control. Rudy is big on criminal control.

It's the second amendment to the Constitution. Me and 4 million of my card carrying NRA friends will never vote for someone who is willing to toss that amendment out the door. It doesn't speak well for his understanding of our foundational document, human nature, or the sort of jurisprudence a conservative wants to see in Judicial appointments.

if you scrutinized everyone the way you are scrutinizing Rudy, you would vote for no one. He bowed down to the 2nd Amendment when he spoke at the NRA but that isn't enough.

You don't like Rudy and so you set an impossible standard, and fine. I don't really care or mind. He will be the nominee and he will be the President. That is just how it is. YOu can get on the boat or you can support someone that will get crushed by him. It is more painful to get crushed though.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

Every urban mayor I know advocates, to some extent, for commuter taxes. And while they are not something I support, I hardly consider the position to be something nutty. Commuters, in DC, NYC, LA, everywhere, come into the city center, use many many services - including police and fire services, and other critical infrastructure, and then return home to the suburbs. They pay no income taxes to the city they use for their livelihood, and so are net consumers.

The belief in a commuter tax as the answer is perhaps misguided, but unless there is a better way to keep from transferring the burden of paying for used civic services from commuters to taxpaying residents, then the tax seems like the best response. Remember Rudy was mayor of NY and answered to the taxpaying residents of the City (not to the suburbanites who only work there) - and MANY residents favor some "commuter tax" that would help pay for the services used.

Commuters enable businesses to create wealth in the city center. Businesses pay property taxes, sales taxes, and corporate income taxes, as well as a slew of business fees.

Commuters typically contribute to sales taxes to the city. The more workers the more space required for rent or lease. This is paid for by property taxes.

"I for one would gladly take a loss in 2008 in order to live to fight in 2012 for a conservative."

That is beyond foolish--your fight in 2012 will not matter, because President Hillary(obama//Edwards) will have filled 3 Supreme Court seats. Your little spite game has now cost you the court for a generation--and probably cost us what remains of our country.

That assumes that Rudy is going to appoint good guys to the bench. If he gets elected as a social liberal (tax payer funding of abortion, etc.) I simply think he is a liar when he says he will appoint good judges.

George W. appointed a pro-Roe vs. Wade justice in Harriet Miers before the Right torpedoed her nomination amidst the Iraq quagmire and plummeting approval numbers.

The Right won't be able to pressure Rudy in the same way because he will have a base much broader than George W. That will enable him to ignore social conservatives during that process.

I agree, we can't be sure about Rudy, although he does have good judicial advisors. But we can be sure of who Hillary will appoint--that we know is not good.

No way will there be three vacancies in the next five years. I would not be the least bit surprised if there were none, and I will be shocked if there is more than one. The problem would come if Hillary were to be reelected, not something that we can rule out. That is not to say even a single seat will not be important.

It is also possible that the vacancy would be lost anyway if there is a Democrat-controlled Senate at the time.

Especially when you consider the average age of the court.
______________________________
"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

I really, really wish there was some candidate out there who:

A) United the conservative base

and

B) Had a realistic chance of beating Hillary Clinton

There is no such candidate. We have plenty of candidates who meet criterion A. I'm fairly convinced -- nay, I'm positive -- that we have precisely one that meets criterion B. And, after all, what good is uniting the conservative base if it's done in a losing cause? Not much that I can see.

The problem with that candidate who meets criterion B is that he doesn't meet criterion A. And, as such, a lot of conservatives (particularly of the social flavor) are up in arms about the possibility.

I can sympathize. I've had to vote, more times than I care to remember, for a conservative who was more attuned to the social issues than the fiscal issues I prefer. I was never crazy about the idea of voting for somebody who winked at us and called himself a "compassionate conservative." Because we all knew that was code language for a big spender. And that's precisely what he became.

But....I still voted for him and others like him. And the reasons are simple:

1) They're better than the alternative. And elections in America typically are a binary choice, whether we like it or not.

2) I'm a team player and I realize that governing coalitions are just that: ie, they're made up of disparate parts with their own agendas that, while they may not be the same, typically don't collide.

So I think social conservatives need to grow up a bit and ask themselves whether they'd rather have somebody who says they like judges like Scalia and Roberts....or have Hillary and her Ruth Bader Ginsburg-redux-waiting-to-happen. Because that's the choice. It may not have the options they'd prefer...but that is the choice.

I can entirely understand why you'd be wary about voting for somebody who is not pro-life. I've been wary about voting for big government Republicans. But I've always done it -- chiefly because I realize that the only alternative has always been worse.

I keep hearing this - "Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary."

We're starting down the road of creating our own KnownFact.

Real Clear Politics averages for head-to-heads with Clinton show that we shouldn't be so sold on this theory:

Rudy: Clinton up 46-43 (latest Rasmussen puts Rudy up 46-44)
Fred: Clinton up 49-41 (latest Rasmussen puts Clinton up 47-45)
McCain: Clinton up 46.5-42 (Rasmussen didn't poll this with the Rudy and Fred ones).
Mitt: Clinton up 48-37.5 (also no late Rasmussen poll)

Given these numbers, all of which show Clinton under 50% while having near universal name recognition, it seems that Rudy, Fred and McCain all have equal chances to beat Hillary. Both are in the margin of error in the Rasmussen polling done last week. Both hold Clinton in the mid-40s. And Fred probably isn't as widely known among voters who won't be voting in the GOP primaries (meaning nominal Democrats and many independents in closed primary states).

So why exactly do we cling to the idea that Rudy is our Obi Wan Kenobi - "he's our only hope." I think we see that a few of our candidates would go into the, allegedly, poor year for the GOP with a very strong position to sell the GOP platform against Hillary. And with more and more information coming to light that between 45 and 50% of people refuse to vote for Hillary! there will certainly be a lot of people looking at the alternative.

If you want to vote for Rudy because he's the most electable, 1) Think John Kerry; and 2) Give me a better reason than polling a practically insignificant amount better than a candidate that most sides of the conservative camp can agree on (Thompson).

John Kerry wasn't electable. That Democrats thought he was isn't my fault. From where I was standing back in 2003/4, they didn't have a candidate out there who would've beaten GWB....which is kind of pathetic because GWB was a pretty vulnerable incumbent.

There's nothing at all wrong with supporting somebody because you believe they have the best chance of winning. John Kerry gave that practice a bad name, chiefly because he just wasn't all that palatable outside of the deep blue states.

I understand what poll numbers say, but this really isn't about poll numbers. It's about finding a candidate who can transcend our party. We need that sort of candidate right now. Because I think there will be a whole bunch of Democrats and independents who will be looking elsewhere if HRC is the Democratic nominee.

And we have to give them an option they can choose.

If we run a more traditional candidate, in the current conditions, we'll get slaughtered. We're sitting at about a 10-12 point deficit in terms of generic party preference. And that's a problem that we'll have to overcome.

I'm no mushy-middler. I'm very pro-life. I'm very pro-gun. I'm anti-amnesty. On and on. I'm really no social liberal at all. But I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to elections.

And I'm feeling more and more, as time goes on, that we have a choice of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as the next president. I realize that a lot of people won't like that choice. But that is the choice.

"It's about finding a candidate who can transcend our party."

But if he can attract people who might not normally vote for the party, then he can also lose people who normally do. This is only a working strategy if you're gaining more electoral votes than you're losing. I don't see it.

"I understand what poll numbers say, but this really isn't about poll numbers."

But just two paragraphs later, you give a generic party preference poll as the justification for your pessimism. If the presidential polls showing no significant difference aren't accurate, why is this one? If anything, I'd say the former is more accurate as a more specific choice.

I just don't understand such faith in Giuliani and despair in the party.

Giuliani would have to rely on a different electoral calculus than GWB did -- particularly in 2004 when Rove was basically successful driving out so many of those vaunted 4 million evangelicals who declined to vote in 2000.

But there are plenty of ways to skin a cat, and plenty of ways to get to 270 electoral votes. I'm not going to get into in detail here, but I've seen a couple really good analyses of the state-by-state breakdown of an HRC-RG matchup. And, frankly, it can look pretty favorable for us.

But it's a different demographic breakdown than Bush had. Giuliani is, obviously, not going to get the support from the social right that Bush got. And you're right that voters lost means that voters have to be gained elsewhere.

The question is whether he can gain enough to pick up what he kisses goodbye by refusing to denounce RvW, etc. I think he can -- and I think he can because I think that Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate with the right opponent.

As for these polling numbers, the reason I don't place too much value in specific head-to-heads right now is because the Republican race is still wide open. And that has a tendency to play havoc with these numbers.

To demonstrate this, look at HRC's head-to-head general election numbers as she's come closer to sealing the deal as the Dem nominee. They've gotten better. And that stands to reason. She's gaining back the support of Dems who want Obama or Edwards.

But I do put stock in the generic polls. I think they're incredibly important. And, moreover, they haven't improved a lick since last November. That's not to say that they won't in the coming year. But I really think the GOP has suffered a staggering blow in the last few years. More than most of us realize.

And, yeah, I think that somebody like Giuliani can bridge that gap. But not too many candidates could do that. It has to be somebody that isn't just looked at as "a Republican." It has to be somebody more like Reagan -- and I'm not talking about his charisma or views or anything, I'm talking about his ability to appeal to voters across the spectrum.

We're going to need that in this cycle to have a chance.

When the guys that get touted are luke-warm about the issue, we sit on our hands. For example, in Illinois we have a weak GOP. Because the power structure is "moderate", and the conservatives stay at home. Give us candidates with bite and credentials (like Rep. Roskam) and we have winners.

The (bad words deleted) side hangs up a "BOO" banner and the GOP says "we have to match them boo for boo. Go for the rhetoric of U.S. Grant, who intended to hew the line, and let the chips fall where they may.

--
Never buy a dog and bark for yourself: 'Slippery' Jim DiGriz

And I completely agree that the conservative platform is a winning platform....with the right candidate.

But there is no such candidate on the slate this year. That's what I'm trying to get across.

You can have the best platform in the world. If it doesn't have the right candidate selling it, it isn't going anywhere. The candidate, ultimately, is more important than the platform...so far as winning and losing elections. And that's what we're talking about here.

The problem with the Brownbacks and Huckabees of the world isn't their message. It's other things. It's the dreaded old "Q score" stuff. It's that whole thing about perception being reality.

Like I said, I really wish we had a candidate that was both viable and unifying for conservatives. No such candidate exists.

And that's nothing against Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney (or even John McCain). But none of these guys is going to be winning a national election against a Clinton.

I actually like Romney the best. But he's gone nowhere in the polls. He's doing pretty well in Iowa and New Hampshire, as that's where he's focused his resources. But I don't think that's a winning strategy in this cycle.

Regarding electability, earlier you said it had nothing to do with poll numbers. Now you say polls show Romney not going anywhere. How do you determine electability.

I disagree that "moderates" will turn to him because the only issues where he departs from most Republicans are not important enough to them; and if they are, such a voter would choose Hillary.

If you go by general election polls, McCain has as good if not better chance than Rudy, particularly in certain swing states. People aren't familiar enough with any of the others.

If you go by primary election polls, Rudy has yet to crack a third outside the liberal states; and Romney is poised to do well in the earliest states. Current polls are too variable and split to be a good indicator of the primaries.

The only thing that comes to mind is Potter Stewart's old saw about pornography: I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.

I never really agreed with Gerald Ford about much of anything. But I agree with what he said about Giuliani before he died: I think he'd be a helluva candidate.

Hillary Clinton would eat Romney or Thompson for breakfast. I'm telling you...we need somebody more formidable than that. We've got to get somebody who transcends the traditional Republican brand -- because that brand is in the crapper right now.

I understand the trepidation that SoCons have about him. They need to get over it.

Social conservatives don't "need to get over" their principles and goals. Rather, your plan needs us to do so.

I said they needed to get over their trepidation about Giuliani. That is absolutely not the same thing as saying they need to get over their principles and goals. I'd never say such a thing.

I'm driven by my ideas, too. And I share a lot of ideas with the social conservative movement. But I have a pragmatic streak about me when it comes to electoral politics. And I know enough to know that, sometimes, looks can be deceiving.

Obviously, no serious social conservative worth his salt would prefer somebody like Giuliani as president over somebody like, say, Sam Brownback. But we don't live in any sort of ideal world. We live in real world, one with limitations and obstacles.

You see, I firmly believe (and believe it more every day) that we're either going to have Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani as the next president. The Republicans can still nominate somebody other than Giuliani. But the choice is still between him and Hillary.

I completely understand that you think either of these would be setbacks to your agenda. I'm not even sure you're right. But you have to take a hard, cold, and realistic look at the landscape that's developing. And it's not one that presents a perfect option to you.

Speaking as a proud ideologue myself, I know that we tend to have political blindspots. We tend to sometimes look at the perfect as the enemy of the good -- or, at least, the not-as-bad. And we work extra hard to not support the lesser of two evils.

But, suppose for a second that I'm right: that we have precisely two choices in '08. What do you do then? Decline to participate because you see no difference, as far as you're concerned?

Well, that would be aggressively stupid. Because there is a difference. There's a difference between a John Roberts and a Ruth Ginsburg. The last President Clinton gave us Ginsburg, the alternative to the next President Clinton says he really likes Roberts.

Can he be trusted? I don't really know. But I'm not sure we have much choice. Because I'm quite certain that Hillary Clinton could be trusted to do what we think she'd do.

And that can't be allowed to happen -- and we do have a way to stop it.

The last President Clinton gave us Ginsburg, the alternative to the next President Clinton says he really likes Roberts.

I don't think the Democrat-controlled Senate likes Roberts too well. No doubt a lot of the same Democrats who voted in his favor for confirmation would now vote against.

The point is that Giuliani has said that he liked both that pick and the Alito pick. And that ought to be reassuring to people who fear his getting there and giving us another John Paul Stevens.

But, the other point I've been stressing is that the liberals are going to hold a lot more power in the filling-of-the-bench in at least the first couple years of the next president's tenure.

As such, I think the thing we absolutely must avoid is a President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic Senate Majority of 56-44 or worse. That is what ought to be motivating us right now....not this silly discussion of who would, in a perfect world, give us the best judicial nominations.

Potter Stewart later found that position in error, and he reversed it in a later ruling (as he did with most of his other positions). The same could very well happen here.

We're still paying for Ford's insight on people with the Supreme Court. We got someone who is MORE liberal than Ginsburg or Breyer!

I don't think any of us knows who is best able to win the general election at this point. And I think a lot of people would disagree on who best "transcends" the traditional Republican brand.

I don't think people will "get over" their own voting preferences. If they did, there would be no need for elections.

...I never really agreed with Jerry Ford on much. But it's beside the point here. I think he's basically right on this one.

Understand, though, that this doesn't mean that I think Giuliani would be the best president of the Republican contenders. If the Republican primary were actually the general election, I'd be singing a very different tune.

But it isn't. It's a contest to see who will go toe-to-toe with the Clinton machine in a Democratic cycle. The odds are against us.

And, while I appreciate somebody thinking that Mitt Romney could go in front of the American people and convince them that he'd be a better pick than Hillary, I just don't think it's in the cards. I wish it were -- I've said a number of times here that I think Mitt is probably my favorite candidate.

But I'm not pining for him -- because I think he's got just slightly more chance to be the next president than I do. And I'm not running.

I just have a very, very hard time -- in these political conditions -- seeing Thompson or Romney (or even McCain, though I still think he's out of it) upsetting Hillary Clinton. Because I'm a conservative, I wish I could envision a thing.

But I can't. And I think conservatives need to be taking a defensive posture regarding the '08 presidential election. I wish we could be more on offense. But we've had the WH for 8 years, our incumbent is extremely unpopular, and our generic party gap with the Democrats is big and it's real.

I'd rather win the WH on offense -- but I'd rather win it on defense than lose it altogether.

Truly one of the city's great Mayors. And thats for a city whose average is pretty damn good to start.
______________________________
"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

You are absolutely correct. He took a third world NYC and cleaned it up. He is the only politician in my lifetime besides Ronald Reagan, who left the place better when he left than when he came in. NYC in 1993 was like the US in 1980--Rudy completely turned it around with shear force of personality and the left vilified him.
I like any of the main republican candidates, but I know Rudy is a fighter and he won't take crap from the media like Mr. Bush does.

Schwarzenegger - He was carried in to Sacramento on a wave of these same sentiments - "better than the alternative" and "I
don't care about his views on ..." And now what do we have in California? A popular governator who can out liberal the Gray Dufus he replaced. Just two weeks ago he signed legislation requiring the teaching of and endorsement of homosexuality in all public classrooms (see SB 777). His governorship shows us just how easy it is to get elected based on one set of principles, and then govern by another.

Conservative enough, is not enough. One must be willing to lead from the beliefs that are conservativism, not just mouth the words to get elected. Therefore a late "Come to Jesus" on the issues does not change the core of the individual. We can expect Rudy to follow his true beliefs should he be elected and I for one (my husband for two) will not vote for a recently respotted leopard.

Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot

You are correct--Arnold is quite disappointing, but again, given the choice you had, what do you do?
If given the choice today between Davis and Arnold, I would still vote for Arnold. If givent he choice between Dole and Bill CLinton, I still vote for Dole, Bush vs. Kerry, I still vote Bush--Rudy vs. Hillary--no question!!

Let's not forget that.

Given the choice between Rudy and Romney, Rudy and Thompson, Rudy and McCain, I take the latter in each case, fully confident that each will give us as good or better shot against Hillary.

We have a strong field of Republican candidates now and have a choice now. WE can avoid an Arnold in California and would be wise to do so.

Think that you're not.

Romney, Thompson, and McCain would all have their lunches eaten and clocks cleaned by Hillary Clinton. They're all fine men. But none of them have the electoral moxie to do the trick.

We had no track record on Arnold, he had never held office. We have a very large track record with Rudy, one that includes some sops to the left, but a whole lot of fighting the left too.

And, he does not have a reputation as someone who goes back on his word.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I have never voted for Arnold. The first time I voted for McClintock who has a proven track record. And for round two I voted for a no name with a better record than the governator.

Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot

For one thing, there's not nearly as much riding on the governor's office in California as there is on the presidency...particularly during wartime.

But, for another, Arnold's victory in both the recall election and last year was never really in question. He plays both sides of the street very well...which is crappy for policy, but great for politics. And that's why he's popular. I imagine a lot of California Republicans are just glad to have somebody with an R by their name back in statewide office. And all the lefties in California are thrilled to have a lefty there not named Gray Davis.

I think the calculus with the presidential election is very different. Here, I really don't think it's bad to vote against somebody. It's going to be a close race, I think. And I think we Republicans have an opportunity to pull a rabbit out of our hats if we play our cards right.

n/t

State Senator Tom McClintock actually finished third with 13.5% -- a genuine conservative with a great future (still does, IMO), had a good statewide rep (for a REAL Republican), but was not going to win if Arnold was not in the race.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

How could someone that is "not electable" be considered a viable alternative?

Only the Zampolits of either party can twist language in this manner.
______________________________
"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

You asked if there was a *better* alternative, which McClintock absolutely was. I volunteered the obvious truth that the *better* alternative was not going to defeat Bustamante (or whatever that jerk's name is).

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

If he is secretive and megalomaniacal then he has my vote for sure, that's just the kind of people who will keep us safe.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You know, it is possible to object to the stereotypical GOP attitude towards gays without being inflammatory about it. But trying to encourage it instead's so... attractive for you guys, isn't it?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Do you see how crazy he drives the nutso left? How much more evidence do you need that he's a good pick for us?

He's "way more secretive than Cheney"...but he's not homophobic, so that must drive you fundies crazy, etc etc.

They don't want him as our nominee. And that's all the more reason to make him so.

I don't care what idiots think.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Reply to this is usually my friend
______________________________
"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