While I Admire Rudy Giuliani . . .
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Rudy — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It is stuff like this that makes me say I can't vote for the man.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hagel Looking To Run? — Comments (22) »
While I Admire Rudy Giuliani . . . 56 Comments (0 topical, 56 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The only thing I agree with him on there are the gay issues - and I don't care much about campaign finance. But that's not what I think will do him in - I think at the end of the day, the fact that he put his third wife over his children is what's going to sink him. No one wants to vote for a lousy father in this Oprah-fied day and age.
We know that he is liberal and he will stand by his liberal positions. Oh yeah, and in the meantime, he is going to appoint strict constructionist judges that will oppose those liberal positions. Yeah right.
For those of you that think Rudy will not change his liberal positions just for the sake of politics (ala Mitt), note that he said he was against the ban on partial birth abortions in the video, but he now says he is for it. Unlike Mitt, Rudy hasn't even tried to offer an explanation for his change (it is not the life of the mother exception because that was in all previous bills that tried to ban partial birth abortion). Hmm. Could it be that he realized almost every Republican (and even a good number of dumb-as-craps) are against it and they would find his position revolting?
Is that he says that Roe v. Wade is "good constitutional law" right off the bat. Now it is one thing to claim that abortion should be legal, but it is quite another to say that Roe is good constitutional law. There is no serious constitutional law scholar in the country, whether liberal or conservative, that believes that Roe is good constitutional law, and today it is protected by the left purely on grounds of precedent (although it's funny that they didn't feel the same way when Lawrence was before them.)
This casts serious doubt on whether Giuliani would really nominate judges "in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito," as he has been promising judicial conservatives - or "the deal" as OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto described it.
Lets not forget that the last time we had someone close to Rudy Giuliani on social issue in The White House, he ended up putting John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. I'd hate to repeat that mistake again - especially when there is so much evidence out there pointing in that direction.
do we even know that Roberts is anti Roe? During the confirmation hearings he seemed very deferential to precedent. This has made me worry that he will turn out to be more like Kennedy than Scalia. I tend to doubt that Roberts is where Scalia is ideologically, but I do have hopes that he turns out to be where the last Chief Justice was.
What he said is that all opinions are due deference under the principles of stare decisis. He basically said that the Court would need to work backwards - undoing Casey first and other cases along the way until clearing the thicket and getting to Roe.
I think that overturning Stenberg v. Carhart will be the first rollback.
You said >"This casts serious doubt on whether Giuliani would really nominate judges "in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito," as he has been promising judicial conservatives - or "the deal" as OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto described it."
I stated a similar viewpoint a week or two ago. I don't believe Rudy Giuiani, in his heart of hearts, really believes in "originalism", "texualism", or any other "ism" that is considered a conservative judicial philosophy.
What concerns me about Giuliani is that he has given lavish praise to Ruth Ginsburg as someone he liked and respected as a justice. Now Rudy says he likes and respects Roberts and Alito.
I don't see how any of the people on the this site can believe Giuliani when he says he will appoint good judges after some of the things he's said. He's clearly WAY far to the left on social issues. He's not just ambivalent about abortion, he supports it. Nobody supports partial-birth abortion unless they are a die-hard.
I think what will likely happen is that he will appoint someone who seems somewhat conservative but doesn't have much of a record and then turns out to be a Souter. Then he can say 'well, I thought he was a conservative'.
And even if he does appoint someone good to the SC because we raise such a fuss when an appointment comes up, what about all the other judicial appointments he gets to make that don't get so much scrutiny? How good are those going to be? Can anyone explain to me why he is going to consistently nominate conservatives? And furthermore, can anyone give any reasons why we he would be more likely to appoint good judges than ANY of the other candidates?
At the end of the clip, Giuliani asks people to stop accusing him of being a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Me, I'd rather nominate someone who is a card-carrying member of the VRWC, even if he only joined and got his membership card last August. :-)
I do not understand why you admire the man. But maybe that is because I have never seen him on T.V. and only know about his character on paper. On paper it does not look that good. He certainly is not my role model. Actually for all I know Hillary has a better character than what this philanderer does.
And he should not have backed out of his race with Hillary. He would have won, and now we wouldn't be facing the prospect of Hillary running for president.
He is very solid on fiscal, economic, and tax issues. He's also a great executive leader. But we need a leader to lead us in the right direction, not lead us with expert precision off a cliff.
Rudy's a born executive, he was never really a good fit to be a legislator.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Many successful great leaders in history have had turbulent privare lives including going thru many wives and having problems with their children. Read the Bible. No one is perfect and our safety comes first. So although I don't agree with many of Guilianis positions I do know that I can sleep better at night while he is in the White House.
for what he did. I have not heard Rudy's repentance story yet. Sure people are not perfect, but some people seem to at least try to have decent lives. I support McCain, ( not necessarilly my first choice, but among my top three) I have heard that he had an affair. This certainly does not make him more attractive to me, but it does not seem like it is a way of life for him.
Of course in all honesty I would not be voting for Rudy even if he did have a perfect familly life.
You forgot to describe all of Rudy's foreign policy experience...oh that's right, he has NONE.
Look, I'm not saying that Rudy wouldn't be a good Commander in Chief in the GWoT and handling Iran, North Korea, etc, but I simply do not understand the logic behind stating that Giuliani would be a great war time leader. Is it quite possible? Absolutely. However, the idea that gets pushed as if its common knowledge that Giuliani will clearly be great leader on foreign issues is either staggeringly naive or simply deceitful. What is Rudy's philosophy about foreign policy? What is his detailed plan for dealing with Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia, etc? What is he going to do to improve our military and intelligence capabilities?
Rudy is electable and he governed more like a conservative than Mr. Bush(especially fiscally), he fought the media harder than Mr. Bush, he left his domain way better than when he came into office(and so far his successes have held up). This was all done in the 2nd most liberal city(San Fran, being first) in the country.
your comment that "Hillary has a better character than what this philanderer does" is silly. I can see people disagreeing with Rudy, but cmon now, let's not get ridiculous here.
You'd rather have Hillary in the White House?
Want to blog against Hillary?Join
Blogs Against Hillary, and start your own blog against her. We need your
help! Join us, and start blogging today!
On second thought...not that close of a race. I think Rudy actually has far more character than Hillary, after a moment of reflection.
But that doesn't change the fact that Rudy's personal life has been very lacking. The calling of a news conference to announce his intention to divorce his wife before she even knew it? Leaving her to learn about it on TV and then have to be out in public fielding questions right afterwards while she's digesting it? Not fostering his relationship with his son? I find it all very disgraceful, and it's very difficult to stomach.
I will say this, Hillary is a much better mother than Rudy is a father.
what I am Hillary, though I really have not heard what Rudy's position on the issues are except for Abortion, Gay rights, and Terrorism. Anyway I am guessing that Rudy is closer on the issues than what Hillary is. However, I did not say that I thought Hillary would be better in the white house, just that for all I know she has better character. I do not totally equate character with a person's position on the issues. You say that my statement was silly, but then you don't offer any evidence of Hillary's immoral behavior. I have heard the accusation that she is lesbian, but nothing to back it up. I certainly have not heard about her publicly humiliating her spouse by showing up in public with an illicit lover.
I have confidence in Rudy's fiscal and foreign policy ability,(at least as much as I do in the other contender's.) and though I would prefer someone who is conservative on social issues, I still think he is the best candidate we have. I have zero confidence left in McCain. I could support Romney, so far I like what I hear, but he is going to have to convince me that he is capable of winning the general election, which he has not yet done. He has not convinced me that he will be able to reach independents.
Of the candidates, I also believe that Rudy will be the most combative with the media. I am tired of Bush taking crap from every corner, and never fighting back.
I suppose I look at it as Rudy is the only candidate that has so far convinced me he is capable of winning the general election(I am hoping that Romney gains steam)and I would rather have him as a President than any Dem.
As for his personal issues, if he's smart, he'll immediately pledge to make the campaign about ideas and policies only, especially if his opponent is Hillary. This would take the initiative away from the dems. I believe strongly that the conservative ideas of low taxes, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom will resonate with the American people more than Hillary's thinly disguised socialism, if communicated effectively.(Big problem for George W.) He(or any nominee) should simply put forward their ideas, and discuss why they believe it is a good idea, and take their opponents ideas and explain why they oppose them.
Liberal 527s will almost definitely attack him on personal issues anyway, I realize, as will the media. He should stick to his message, and attack the left for resorting to personal attacks, as opposed to discussing ideas. He should challenge them to discuss ideas.
OK, now that I'm done rambling, I imagine that I'll get a lot of rebuttals to this posting.
I don't think that there is any doubt that Rudy appears to be the surest path to victory next Nevember, and there's no question that he would be better than any Democrat running.
The question is, how many principls are the GOP willing to sell out in order to win?
Great question.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
And not everyone shares all of those principles. I think Rudy would be a competent and effective President and I could care less about his private marital issues.
If he takes on Terror like he took on the Mafia in NYC I'll be happy.
Don't buy the lie that what people do in their personal lives has nothing to do with their public lives. Character matters, and how people deal with their family is often a very good indicator of character.
What happens when leaders lack character? Corruption, bribery, scandal, Enron, politicians who care more about winning elections and having power than doing what is best for the country (most of the porksters in Congress, anti-war democrats, Clinton).
I suspect that if they had betrayed the social conservatives instead of the fiscal conservatives for the last six years, they would not have lost the House and Senate in 2006.
But maybe that's just me pulling a "if you had followed my advice, you wouldn't have lost" kinda thing that is so popular with the kids these days.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If Bush and the Republicans in Congress had controlled spending, made the income tax cuts permanent, and taken strong measures against illegal immigration, we would still have a majority in both houses - regardless of what they did (or failed to do) on abortion and gay marriage...
Almost all of these clips are from before 9/11. Before 9/11 Giuliani would NEVER have benn considered.
Life has changed, we're at war, and conservatives' priorities in choosing a nominee also have changed.
Giuliani has made his commitment on judges and chose Ted Olson as his key advisor. You need to take yes for an answer.
Giuliani, according to his policy director, William Simon, will support the Hyde amendment. He'll need to talk about Don't ask, don't tell, but that's law, not an executive order and my guess is Rudy will duck that one. He's not going to push gun control either, and do you think Democrats are going to put a narrow majority in the House unnecessarily at risk by pushing gun control? I don't.
Finally, that video, prepared in advance of CPAC didn't seem to have had much impact. The guy got 34% of 1st and 2nd choices.
Now add tax cutting, school choice, and, above all, the potential for wartime leadership. These are the reasons why Giuliani is leading in the polls.
If Romney wants to overtake him, Romney will need to convince the party base that he is electable. George Will got it right in my view when he depicted all of the three main candidates as conservative, attractive candidates. Each has flaws. But they are all good choices and Giuliani's potential as a wartime leader who might win a smashing victory at the polls clearly appeals to many, many, conservatives.
It would be a greater abandonment of principle to let Hillary win, knowing the damage that she would do to our economy and our military.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not supporting Rudy just because. I am supporting him because of his ability to win, and praying that another capable candidate with a good shot at winning presents themself.
On a somewhat different note, I believ that issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc, can best be dealt with in a cultural manner.
What we need in a president, in my humble opinion, is a leader who can clearly articulate and explain conservative economic principles. I live in Western PA, so during the last election I saw commercials for the Hart/Altmire PA district 4 race, the Santorum/Casey race, the Dewine/Brown race, and a few other congressional districts in Ohio. In every case, the dems slammed the republican candidates for "sending good American jobs overseas," or "tax breaks for the rich/oil companies," and not one Republican responded effectively, or to my knowledge, even responded at all.
We are losing the battle agianst economic populism. We need a candidate who can explain to people clearly why free trade is a good idea, how lower taxes for the wealthy stimulate job growth for everybody, etc. Ask rhetorical questions that make people think. Point out that the goal is not to make the rich poorer, but to make the poor richer, by creating opportunity, not handouts. I would love to see a candidate, in a debate setting, with millions watching, ask rhetorically if anyone has noticed how all of the left's proposed solutions involve more bureaucracy, higher taxes, or the government sticking its nose farther into people's lives.
For too long we have let the shrill, ridiculous claims of the left go unanswered. Just look at Bush. He gets hit everyday, and has shown no ability or willingness to fight back. Liberals appeal to people's emotions, while seeking to deprive them of knowledge that contradicts their claims. We need to explain the conservative position to people clearly, and appeal to common sense. Point out the success of low tax, lightly regulated economies in Eastern Europe versus the stagnation Western Europe, with massive regulation and taxes.(The fact that it will tick off the French is an added bonus!)
Ask people directly, "Who do you think can manage your money better, you or the government? etc.
In short, we need a Reagan at the top of the ticket, but conservative office holders, all around the country, at every level of government, need to find the courage to begin confronting and correcting people's misperceptions.
Now that I've gone on far longer than I expected, barring a Newt entry, Rudy is the only one I see that can begin to do this. Hopefully he realizes that this is the way to win. Actually, hopefully Romney takes this track.
Perhaps I hope for to much.
We need a presidential candidate, and other candidates who will fight back EVERY TIME they're attacked and AS SOON AS they're attacked. Candidates who ask the people, over and over, who is better at managing your money, you or the government?
Candidates who emphasize every day how lower taxes help to create jobs.
Candidates who give concrete, personalized examples of how excessive regulations hurt ordinary Americans and their small businesses (like the Institute for Justice does).
But I couldn't disagree more strongly with the comment about needing to show how free trade is a good idea. American workers and businesses are being destroyed by unfair practices under what we're calling "free trade."
Foreign governments subsidize their exporters directly. They subsidize their exporters indirectly, by keeping their currency artificially devalued versus the US dollar, e.g., the Chinese yuan. And countries like China & India offer an effectively limitless pool of dirt-cheap labor -- at wages that will never support a minimally civilized First World lifestyle here in the US.
It would help our businesses and workers a lot if we'd reduce or eliminate the fed corporate income tax, and reduce the cost of regulations. But American workers/businesses still can't possibly compete with companies that pay a dollar an hour abroad and don't have meaningful environmental strictures to pay for.
Republicans deserve to keep getting our butts kicked if we keep being apologists for this "free trade."
Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs are right, and more and more Americans are realizing it. Our road back to the majority does not involve continuing to acquiescce in the destruction of the American manufacturing base.
There have been some internet rumors of a potential Lou Dobbs candidacy in 2008. If Dobbs were to run and be properly financed, he could cause a real storm come 2008.
There are many republicans and independents who support Dobbs views on immigration, trade, and government reform. Unfortunately, the party establishment avoids/opposes Dobbs views with a vengeance.
I would LOVE to see Dobbs, or someone like him, run just to shake things up. Too many of the current candidates in both parties are running with campaigns cooked up by paid consultants who are out of touch with everyday citizens.
I can't think of many more terrible ideas. Except maybe Hillary (or any other Democrat) for president. LOL
I'm not sure why an open borders supporter like you would not like Hillary. Afterall, she and her husband supported Nafta, Gatt, etc...Not to mention the Clinton administration's bizzare affection for Chinese lobbyists who helped make trade restrictions easier between the two countries.
Milton Friedman disagreed.
I believe in preserving the American manufacturing base as well, but it ought to be done by finding new and innovative methods of production, and/or new products. Of course, since a major part of this would include automization, the unions will throw a fit. They should be told to go take a long walk on a short pier.
And, Treasury secretary Paulson is heading to China for the second or third time to attempt to persuade them to revalue their currency. I doubt he'll have success, but pressure is being applyed to developing nations to make their currency policies more fair.
As for the dirt cheap labor, if they didn't work in factories, they would probably be beggars. I recall reading a piece, I'll try to find it, that made the point that while wages seem low, they are actually quite good compared to what most other people in these countries make, and that those who work in factories that produce products bought by the west actually enjoy a higher standard of living than their fellow countrymen.
Boosting American manufacturing should not be done through protectionism,(on another note, an item produced here in America at greater cost than a similar item produced in a developing country will cost more, and thus be less competitive in the global market.)but by tax incentives for American based manufacturers and incentives for R&D.
in foreign countries had nothing to do with concern for the welfare of the workers making those wages in the foreign countries. I have nothing against them, but they are not my primary concern. My only concern is what's best for MY people, Americans, and that should also be the overriding concern of our party and government.
So, it's true that the very-low-wage jobs springing up in China, India, Pakistan, etc., are better for the people in those countries than what they'd otherwise have. And so what? It's NOT better, on balance, for the AMERICANS who are losing their jobs as those low-wage jobs are created in, or outsourced to, the foreign countries.
Invoking Milton Friedman won't persuade me, and the same goes for many other educated, well-read, patriotic Americans. Milton Friedman was a good & brilliant man, and usually right, but here he was dead wrong.
As is the case with just about anybody who ever disagrees wtih Milton Friedman. I hear that people loved to disagree with Friedman when he wasn't present. :-)
Free trade may hurt some particular Americans - and yes this is sad, and I believe that we should do what we can to help them get retrained and into new, emerging industries. But free trade has always, with remarkable consistancy, proved that it does nothing but help the overall American economy. It forces the United States to get out of industries that we have comparative disadvantages in and refocus on industries where we have a comparative advantage.
Your problem seems to be that you have tunnelvision and only see the negative effects without also seeing the overwhelming positive effects. For instance, Bush's first term steel tarrifs saved an estimated 5,000 steel jobs. Great. But they also cost the US 20,000 jobs in steel-consuming industries. Oh wait...not so great.
Protectionism is a net killer of American jobs. We really need a more rigorous economics curriculum in our nation's education system to drive this home so that people don't keep making stupid decisions and voting for the likes of Sherrod Brown for the Senate.
FYI - Do you know when the United States had a really healthy trade surplus? The Great Depression. Whenever America has had trade deficits, we've usually also had great prosperity. I just point that out to suggest that perhaps, if not a good thing, trade deficits aren't really a bad thing either.
Not trying to start a running feud, but last time I looked, unemployment was down and wages were up. I would rather America owned the means of production and design and sell what was being produced.
However, from a strategic standpoint, we need to retain significant industrial capacity. Suppose we found ourselves involved in a major conflict(I suspect that within a few decades we may be involved in one with China, but thats for a different time) and had to manufacture many planes and ships. I fear that we will lose the capacity to do that. As a said, I am sure we have the technology to manufacture at competitive prices, but it will require far fewer workers, which still will not satisfy the unions.
Ideally, I want an America where quality goods are produced quickly and cheaply in highly automated factories. A machine cost the same to operate here as it would in India.
"Ideally, I want an America where quality goods are produced quickly and cheaply in highly automated factories. A machine cost the same to operate here as it would in India."
The problem with your statement is a machine doesn't cost the same to operate here as in India or China as long as a human being is somehow involved in its operation. The reason millions of manufacturing jobs have left America is due to the fact that the cost of human labor in third world countries is dramatically lower than here and always will be. The cost of labor is so low in China that even a country like Mexico has lost jobs because Mexican cheap labor is more costly than Chinese cheap CHEAP labor.
The next huge wave of cheap Chinese goods will have a dramatic negative influence on the US auto industry. China is rapidly building new auto plants and will be entering the US market soon with cars at much lower costs. Once the US consumer perceives the Chinese auto to be equal in quality, the US manufacturers will be forced to cut costs to compete or risk going out of business.
It should be noted that not only does China have extremely low labor costs, but the Chinese government subsidizes many of its Chinese manufacturers. The low labor costs combined with goverment subsidies is a one two punch that US manufacturers cannot compete with no matter how good a product we produce.
The subsidies should be neutralized with tarrifs. The monies from the tarrifs should be applied to debt reduction.
Otherwise, we should allow the free market to decide which automotive companies will survive. More people will benefit from having access to cheap automobiles than will be hurt from losing jobs to China.
Don't forget, if there weren't advantages to building automobiles in the United States, Toyota, Honda, and BMW wouldn't be building cars and trucks in San Antonio and Mississippi.
The only way the US and Japanese will be able to compete with the Chinese auto industry will be if Chinese auto manufacturers built the autos in North America. If have no problem with the Japanese companies who build quality autos here in the states, in fact, I own one. But if the Chinese are allowed to export Chinese built autos it will kill not only the US auto industry, it will hurt the Japanese as well. And that will put alot of US workers out of a job.
Force China to build here? Crazy talk.
The U.S. auto industry has a long and pathetic history of not being innovative until forced to by competition. If the Chinese auto industry kills Detroit, so be it. In the end, it will be the unions who killed the American auto industry, not China. The free market will have simply exposed how much the unions have screwed up the industry.
Free trade keeps inflation low, but leaves us vulnerable to our suppliers and our outsourced manufacturers during a time of war or other national emergency.
Free trade increases economic interdependency. Economic interdependency increases pressure for countries to "get along" and decreases incidences of "national emergency."
If we could eliminate every trade barrier and all subsidies in the world, we would have a remarkably stable, peaceful, and wealthy world.
As conservatives get to know Rudy, it becomes obvious that his political views are closer to those of Hillary than with the mainstream of the republican party. Don't get me wrong, I like watching Rudy of TV. He is very articulate when discussing what he believes in. Unfortunately, Rudy is so articulate in his left leaning agenda that his own words will ultimately do him in as a serious candidate among conservative voters.
Perhaps Rudy would make a good attorney general, or maybe even director of homeland security in a republican administration. But not president.
I find it hard to believe that America does not possess the capability of constructing auto plants, for example, capable of producing cars with virtually no human involvement, except for servicing the computers, or performing the occasional repair.
This man is a man that cares about stopping illegal immigration. My parents are in their 80's and are lifelong republicans who only watch fox news except for the lou dobbs show. He also takes on issues like the failed war on drugs which is a joke. One of these days after terrorits have slipped across the border with a dirty bomb or worse and take out an american city will people start paying more attention to heros like lou dobbs. He doesn't need to be president he needs to continue his fantastic work exposing both parties for their failed policies toward protecting our borders.
But other than his insistance on getting control of the border, he has few good ideas. Protectionism is among his very worst ideas.
Sadly almost no one including Lou Dobbs gives Bush any credit for the economy and it's very good according to statistics on Tucker today on MSNBC.
Lou Dobbs constant news on the border issue helps keep it in the public eye and recently he also has been concentrating on the terrible drug situation in our country no other news even discusses the drug problem those two issues alone makes his show a valuable tool. However unfortunately I feel that the 12-20-30 million illegal alians will get amnesty which is just not right but the leaders of both parties want it.
on their "electability" although I can see elimiting those who are totally known unelectables.
I think Guliani is very good on some conseravative issues, and he has proven himself as a tenacious executive. I think he would make a better leader than the current man in the White House, and I also think Guliani would handle the media better.
These things make Guliani an acceptable candidate for me.
I struggle though with the primary-I am a social conservative, and his positions on abortion are especially troubling-I just don't know that I can pull the lever (okay in my state mare the box) for this guy, although I think I would have no qualms about voting for him in the general election.
I just keep wishing my perfect candidate would show up for the GOP, but the perfect dark horse candidate I desire probably won't, so I am stuck with a bunch of candidates I don't care for in one area or another.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!