Rudy knocks Hillary’s foreign policy
posted at 3:30 pm on October 6, 2007 by Bryan
This is where Rudy Giuliani excels as a GOP candidate. Foreign policy/the war is the issue of our time, and a social conservative like myself likes what he has to say on the issue.
Based on Clinton’s answers in recent debates, Giuliani said during a town hall meeting that he cannot figure out her position on Iran.
“We’re dealing with a level of ambiguity that I don’t believe is a good sign in a would-be commander in chief in a time of war,” said Giuliani, who has positioned himself as the one Republican able to thwart another Clinton presidency…
In a debate late last month, Clinton refused to say whether she would pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013, what would be the end of her first presidential term. “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” she said.
The New York senator also ducked a debate question about whether Israel had the right to bomb Iran if Tehran posed a nuclear threat. She called the question a “hypothetical,” and said, “That’s better not addressed at this time.”
Giuliani said he has made it clear that he would not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and would not rule out military action to stop that from happening.
He said the U.S. must win the war in Iraq so that country “will act as an ally for us in the Islamic terrorist war against us.”
“If you listen to Democrats and some people in the press, the whole reason we’re in Iraq is to figure out how to withdraw,” he said. “That’s all they talk about. I don’t know if they realize how counterproductive that is. I don’t know if they realize how strategically irresponsible that is.”
I have nothing to argue with in any of that. Democrats like Hillary, who are endlessly talking not about winning but withdrawing, are giving the enemy a reason to believe that they can outlast us and win. It’s a confirmation to them that the Giap strategy that defeated us in Vietnam can defeat us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rudy is right.
But so are all of the other Republican candidates on this issue, with one glaring exception. If this is all Rudy has, plus his and his supporters’ belief that he’s the only one who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election next year, it’s fairly thin gruel.
Rudy and his supporters ought to be clear about something in their own minds, as I think clarity will help them deal with social conservatives like myself. In the GOP field, I don’t see a perfect candidate. There are some very good candidates, some less good, and one awful one. If I were to design a perfect candidate, he would probably be a combination of Rudy and Romney and McCain and Hunter. I like Hunter’s biography and the fact that he’s a rock solid conservative, so solid that he even spoke at the third Gathering of Eagles a few weeks back. I like the fact that his own sons have chosen to go to war, as he did in Vietnam. I like McCain’s biography too, but I don’t like his many betrayals of conservative principle. I like the star power that Rudy and Romney bring to the table, and I like Romney’s business background and his unflappability. He’s just as cool as can be under fire. But he tacked left to win in Massachusetts and now he’s taking right to win the White House, making it difficult to know who he really is. And then there’s Rudy.
Giuliani has record of cleaning up NYC, he has the record of how he responded to 9-11, he has the record of being tough on most crime, but he also has the record of being socially to the left even of most Democrats. And he has that record on his own personal life.
What are the odds that if we have a President Giuliani, we’ll have a major sex scandal of some kind? I figure it’s about 60% or higher, and I’m only basing that on his own record. It’s not a record that James Dobson or anyone else made up out of false accusations. Like Bill Clinton’s record, Rudy’s is based on his own actions. It’s his own fault. It’s not demagoguery to point it out, and to wonder if it’s a good idea to put him in the White House knowing the potential for scandal that he carries with him. And when you add this potential to all of the other damage President Giuliani could do to the country and the conservative cause, well, it’s legitimate to wonder if he’s really the best man to be the Republican standard bearer next year. Do we want someone who might bring Republican bimbo eruptions to the White House, in the middle of a war? Do we want to be a bunch of James Carvilles, out there arguing the definition of “is” or whatnot, and in the face of a press that will be gunning for this kind of thing from the day he takes office?
Yes, President Rudy could well win the war, and in a way that it’s tough to imagine any Democrat winning it. He might, in other words, actually win it. He has the right attitude on the threats that we’re up against, and he was ahead of the game and still is ahead of the game when you compare him to most politicians. But if at the same time he keeps us unsecured by not paying attention to the border, and if he gives us a squishier Supreme Court and moves us left economically and fiscally, and if he gives us a Republican party that’s socially indistinguishable from the Democrats, what’s the long term effect of his presidency? I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t think it’s wise for his supporters to continue to slam Giuliani’s socially conservative critics. Social conservatives are part of the brake on the Democrats, as part of the conservative/Republican coalition. The libertarian wing of the GOP, which tends to be smaller than the social con wing, just can’t say enough nasty things about us social cons, and just can’t stop slamming various social con leaders for doing nothing more than offering an honest opinion on real issues of the day and where the various candidates stand or fall in relation to those issues. That kind of thing is not going to win Giuliani any votes in the primaries, and it may lose him votes if he’s the nominee, with the net result that the other side wins.
Just something to think about.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Rudy, the Anti-Statesman Giuliani’s loopy foreign-policy essay – By Fred Kaplan
Rudy Giuliani’s essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, laying out his ideas for a new U.S. foreign policy, is one of the shallowest articles of its kind I’ve ever read. Had it been written for a freshman course on international relations, it would deserve at best a C-minus (with a concerned note to come see the professor as soon as possible). That it was written by a man who wants to be president—and who recently said that he understands the terrorist threat “better than anyone else running”—is either the stuff of high satire or cause to consider moving to, or out of, the country.
MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Well said, Bryan.
I still can’t figure out why Rudy is pro-choice yet anti-gambling.
see-dubya on October 6, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Argh, last comment went into moderation.
I was trying to say, I still cna’t figure why Rudy is pro-choice yet against games of chance on riverboats. And no one’s asked him about it.
see-dubya on October 6, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Low? He’s not married to Donna “Vagina Monologues” Hanover anymore.
What is that fear based on?
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM
MB4,
Fred who?
Oh yeah, I remember now. At one time he worked as a defense advisor for Les Aspin, who eventually became Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense. You know, the one who didn’t respond to Colin Powell’s requests for manpower in Somalia and was forced to resign after Black Hawk Down?
We should listen to what Fred Kaplan has to say because_________?
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Bryan, what do you base your economic fear on? He lowered taxes, supports the Bush tax cuts, created a surplus and has been endorsed by Forbes.
As for a scandal? How many times has Clinton been married? Larry Craig? Mark Foley? How much damage has Bush done to the party’s chances with non-sexual “scandals”?
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM
The liberal media views Giuliani as the least repulsive Republican. Therefore the meme the one Republican able to thwart another Clinton presidency in order to influence the Republican primary process.
Support for the Republican party is waning because of illegal immigration, deficit spending, corruption, and the war. If the Republicans nominate a candidate who further alienates conservatives by his past actions on illegal immigration, gun control and abortion they will lose the general election.
Also, I’d like him to tell us the position a Giuliani DOJ will argue to the SCOTUS on the following case:
A same-sex couple from Wyoming travels to Massachusets for the purpose of getting married, and the State of Wyoming doesn’t recognize the marriage.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Jaime, probably the same stance Fred Says he’ll take if a state legalizes gay marriage: “So Be It”.
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM
My biggest problem with Rudi is that his actions do not support his rhetoric.
He sued to get rid of the line item veto, because he was a strict contructionist on Constitutional issues… he said..
Yet, supported McCain Feingold, anti free speech.
Sued Gun companies to get around the second amendment, supported gun control laws…
Appointed over 75% Democrat judges…
All of these things are ANTI a strict reading of the Constitution…
Then he’s big time pro law and order… but…
Ran a sanctuary city…
Cops and Firemen from New York HATE him…
Then big time on lowering taxes…
But sued the Mayor of New York to keep in place a Commuter tax….
I see a LOT of actions which do not fit his stated beliefs…
So… he says he’ll be tough now, but he does not have a track record of sticking to his core beliefs…
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Just read the previous post on illegals getting a license. Rudy ran a sanctuary city.
Rudy was also part of the mayors that tried to sue gun manufacturers out of business.
Rudy is pro abortion.
There is three items that Rudy would use to push this country left. There are more, but you get the drift.
With a Democrat controlled congress, just how much would a president Rudy be able to do against the terrorists?
That leaves his liberal positions. Don’t tell me a President Rudy would not sign an amnesty bill.
Don’t tell me a President Rudy would not sign an anti gun bill.
Rudy is nothing more than a RINO.
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
What Giuliani did never qualified as a “sex scandal” of the Craig or Clinton variety. As far as I know, he was never accused of doing anything illegal or anything that interfered with his responsibilities. He’s a serial monogamist who had a poor sense of propriety, but the questionable behavior was all pre-9/11 and pre-prostate cancer. In short, I’d estimate that there closer to 0% than 60% of a real “sex scandal.” Bryan’s statements amount to a rather scurrilous attack, however reasonable the tone.
Social conservatives have every right and reason to criticize Rudy, even to hold his feet to the proverbial fire. But there’s a tendency – whether as above or whether in more common shorthand – to exaggerate, possibly for effect, possibly because to the critic there really is no difference between, say, being “pro-choice” and being “pro-abortion.” The former is a position that can be taken based upon an understanding of the law and tradition, including an unwillingness to vest too much power in the state. The latter tends to be an ugly insult. If Rudy wins the nom, his supporters will point to his actual record and his commitments on abortion-related issues, and be in a position to ask of those So Cons flirting with staying home or supporting a 3rd party, “How many babies are you willing to kill for the sake of your moral pretensions?”
Like some of others here, I can’t figure out at all the basis for fearing he’d move to the left economically or fiscally. (And to the left of what?) As for immigration, his law enforcement credentials at least give reason to hope.
If you’re going to fight and defeat Giuliani, do it on the basis of what he is, not on the basis of a twisted image.
CK MacLeod on October 6, 2007 at 5:07 PM
If you stay home you lose you fools…you can’t win by losing. Stop being stupid before it is too late.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 5:08 PM
rockdalian, where in there did you justify economic fears over Giuliani? I saw immigration, abortion and gun control. The other pack leaders have either flipped on or take a non-interventionist approach on all of that but the gun control. On gc, Rudy’s already said he wants the states to decide.
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM
So be what? So be it that Wyoming doesn’t recognize a Massachusets marriage? Or so be it that Wyoming recognizes some Massachusets marriages of competent consenting adults but not others? Or so be it that Article IV of the Constitution requires Wyoming to recognize Massachusets marriages and they’re not doing it?
What it sounds like Fred is saying:
is that if a State wants gay marriage, so be it, but they can’t impose it on another State or the Federal government. I agree, it’s not as clear as it could be, and I’d like a clarification from Fred. If his DOJ would argue that States can have gay marriage but other States and the Federal government don’t have to recognize it, that’s fine with me. But I’d like to know his reasoning given Article IV.
I’d like to hear how all the candidates will have the DOJ argue this case when it comes to the SCOTUS.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM
For crying out loud, he purposefully ran a sanctuary city. He knowingly ran a sanctuary city, in spite of our laws. Wishful thinking will not erase this.
I do not understand this propensity to believe what this man says and ignore his actions.
I can hear Rudy saying, in his best Bill Clinton voice, I tried to appoint Conservative judges to the Supreme Court. I never tried anything harder. Those nasty Democrats stopped me and I had to nominate liberal judges.
Not that he has a record of appointing liberal judges or anything.
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Jaime, see I took Fred’s statement differently than you did. I too would like a clarification from him.
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 5:22 PM
The man is pro illegal immigration. Surely there must be some economic costs associated with this position.
As mayor, Rudy used taxpayer money to sue gun manufacturers. Surely there were more important areas where this money could have been spent.
Judge the man by his actions, not his words.
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 5:25 PM
The sanctuary city argument has been re-visited over and over. Either engage the specifics of the situation Giuliani faced as mayor – literally hundreds of thousands of illegals, near-ZERO help from the Federal Government – explain what you would have done differently, or admit you’re just passing on propaganda points that you’ve been spoon fed and don’t care to have analyzed soberly.
CK MacLeod on October 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Ok, let’s judge him by his actions. He also lowered taxes, created a surplus and has received endosements in the business world including by Forbes. Don’t just judge him by his negative aspects – look at the full picture.
Before being a tax-cutting Republican idol, Reagan was a pro-choice, high tax, union leader in Hollywood. His past actions hadn’t met up with the excellent speeches he’d give later on.
amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Uh, what does that list of talking points have to do with Rudy’s fiscal policies? Nothing??
Rudy the fiscal conservative.
A snippet:
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM
This was about knocking Hillary and this site turns into a buch of wimp Newt Gingroids. Never miss a chance to eat your young.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Problem is a little thing called the Constitution.
If one state gives a license, then the other states HAVE to recognize it…
Article. IV.
Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Meaning that if one state gives them a marriage License, the other state HAS to recognize it as a marriage license.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
You seem to have missed his tenure as governor of California, where he did put his philosophies into action.
Y’all are free to vote as you wish.
As to me, first and foremost I am prolife. Second, I am progun. Third, I am against amnesty for illegals.
Rudy fails on all three.
And I do not believe, for a New York minute, that he is the only man that can beat the Clintons.
rockdalian on October 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
To be fair, a lot of the libertine wing of the GOP doesn’t like Rudy either, his record on gun control is atrocious, and he leans authoritarian in a lot of issues, which turns off a lot of people, so to just lay down blanket fire on libertine types is I think a bit unfair.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Is New York better because of Him or worse.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Problem is that he is not running for Congress… you know.. the guys who make TAX POLICY!!!
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 5:54 PM
New York is significantly better, but that question is irrelevent. New York City isn’t America, which New Yorkers have a b*tch of a time understanding.
Not every place works like New York, and a lot of people really question if Rudy gets that, given that most questions he answers “Well what we did in NYC…” So given his gun grabbyness, his authoritarian leanings, and his social liberalism, he’s gonna grate on a lot of people.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 6:05 PM
His history, plus his weird thing with taking phone calls from wife, make some of us wonder about his judgement.
Since some of his current positions differ from what he did as mayor–which makes sense to me, given the difference in situations–his judgement is extremely important. ANY section of a candidate’s history that shows quesionable judgement can and should be considered.
MamaAJ on October 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I understand the he has the quality to step across that line like Reagan did…and no one else does.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I thought that was unfair too, but for different reasons. It is not entirely accurate that Social Cons are just innocently expressing their opinions and it’s so unfair that people object to their positions. Many of them have taken very intractable, hard nosed stances against Rudy and Mitt, and unreasonably dismiss them out of hand as candidates. I can understand their concerns, but there has to be a reality check somewhere along the line.
You have to understand just how entrenched the ultra-liberal bureaucracy and ACLU mindset was when Rudy took office. Considering what he was up against and what he accomplished, it really was miraculous and a very good indication of what he could do as President.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Yeah, he could outlaw guns, and give amnesty to illegals.
Not to mention using the court system to circumvent the will of the people, congress, and President.
And he could appoint Liberal Judges…
See… he may be good in some venues, but there are others in which he is very questionable.
Collin Powell was a pretty good General… but he was horrible as a Sec State… and even worse now that he’s retired.
Just because you’re good at one thing, does not mean you will be good at another level…
But your past acts DO give us an indication of what you really think is important… your job? your City? your base moral character? your beliefs?
Rudi’s only answer for ALL of the anti Conservative anti Constitution things he did was that it was good for New York City…. not because it was right.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Well, there was someone else as president so the the he was only doing it for New York is a Joke.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Romeo13,
First of all, do YOU understand what the President can do as the Executive? You have placed tax policy entirely into the lap of Congress, but seem to think that the President can single-handedly revoke the Second Amendment (as if that is what Rudy would want anyway), or give amnesty to illegals.
He can appoint judges, amazingly you are correct there, but I have no reason to believe that Rudy’s choices would be anything but conservative. Even then he needs to have the Senate approve his choices and thanks to the Gang of 14, which included John McCain, we now need a filibuster proof nominee instead of a simple majority, so his power is not endless.
What Rudy did as Mayor of New York was to address the issues that were for him local issues. Obviously his role as President would be entirely different.
I don’t believe that there is a single viable candidate who meets your exacting standards, so you better face the fact that you’re probably going to have to compromise on Election Day and hold your nose on a few issues.
The alternative is to feel really good about standing on principal while you hand the Presidency over to Hillary Clinton and the Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s of the world.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 6:55 PM
err, standing on “principle”. Arrghh.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Those who aren’t for Rudy…If he wins the nomination..will you vote for him?
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 7:04 PM
LOL….
The CONGRESS controls tax policy, or don’t you know the Constitution… all the President can do is sign it or not, and potentialy get overriden by a veto…
As to Revocation of the Second amendment and Border enforcment. The enforcment of those two are up to people who work for the President. I’m convinced that Bushy did not WANT the border laws enforced… which is why we are in the position we are now in.
As to the Second Amendment, he could easily appoint judges who think like he does to the Supreme Court. By By Second…
As to Judges, his past track record is NOT good. He is way more liberal than you want to admit, and has abrogated and attempted to circumvent the Constitution on more than one occasion. He appointed over 75% Demo Judges as Mayor… Just what part of that track record makes you believe what he NOW says?
What Rudy did as Mayor, and the tactics he used, DO show what is important to him… not baseline core beliefs, but his job as Mayor of New York. Sorry, but I want a President with a bit more moral fortitude… someone who does things not only for the right reason… but does it in a manner consistant with Conservative Principals.
And once more you make the arguement of Vote for my guy cause he is not as F’d up as the other guy…
Sorry, that won’t get my vote… nominate a dang Conservative with a plan and you will.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 7:05 PM
The only individual intellectually capable of bringing another sex scandal into the White House is the same individual who did it before and who had no shame for doing it.
As far as Rudy blasting Hillary’s foreign policy goes – what foreign policy?
Connie on October 6, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Romeo13,
Have you ever heard of THE BUSH TAX CUTS?
Think about it!
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Those who want the GOP to remain under the spell of the socos toss out the insults with such ease. Rudy is pro-abortion, gun-grabber and ran a sanctuary city. Now, he will even get in sex scandals and move us left fiscally!!! Its all a myth.
Look at his positions now — his real positions — not the ones attributed to him by his enemies. He is pro-adoption, anti-abortion, but pro-choice, however, he believes in strict constructionist judges (like Roberts and Alito). He believes the 2nd gives an individual the right to bear arms with reasonable restrictions based upon local conditions. He promises to end illegal immigration and identify those within our borders. He insists those here learn English and eats at Geno’s. Rudy’s NYC was not a sanctuary city because NYC reported all illegals convicted or suspected of a crime to federal authorities and the numbers reported by Rudy’s NYC always exceeded the numbers deported by the feds for him. The assertion that he is liable to go left fiscally is absurd and just demonstrates Bryan’s irrational bias. Rudy may have made questionable decisions in his personal life, but not the type of decisions likely to result in a sex scandal, plus I suspect the cancer put a damper on his libido.
Rudy is a results oriented guy. He sets an objective and he achieves it. He uses all the tools in the tool box to accomplish his goal, and there can be little criticism of the results. Given his history of getting the job done (whateverit is), and what he is promising to do if elected, I believe the fears expressed herein are unfounded.
And if the opposition to the Rudy candidacy is just a power grab by soco’s unwilling to share the shade under the tent, then I say let’s nominate Rudy and wreck the GOP.
tommylotto on October 6, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Amerpundit, that doesn’t really tell me much about:
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Believe me, I know, better than a lot of people who aren’t New Yorkers do, my father used to go to NYC regularly for business meetings, so I know what it was.
I remember the early 90s New York and NEVER wanted to go back to that hellhole, and I know how nervous I was going in my first time going back in the late 90′s(young teenager), I heard it was cleaned up, but I thought, how cleaned up could it really be? I couldn’t believe how cleaned up that city was!
But again, irrelevent, America is not NYC, different people, different cultures, different beliefs and values. Rudy was a miracle worker in NYC, but again, not everything works like NYC.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 7:24 PM
And yeah tomas, I’ll vote for him…beats Hillary.
Bad Candy on October 6, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Would those be the Tax cuts enacted by the Republican controled CONGRESS???
Just because most people misname them, does not make it reality.
Just like CLINTON did not balance the budget, the CONGRESS did.
War on Terror… same thing… we are not in a war on Terror… we are in a war with Islamic Fundamentalists. Misnaming somthing allows you to control the debate, but does not change the reality of the situation.
The President submits a Budget to Congress, which is then pretty much thrown out and totaly redone by the various commitees in Congress… sometimes he gets some of what he suggested… often not… but he CANNOT change TAX POLICY… only Congress can.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Ummm… look at his past ACTIONS, not his present rhetoric.
Ever hired someone for a job? As soon as they say somthing in the interview that does not match up with their Resume or known past action? Its a HUGE danger sign.
Rudys in the biggest job interview in the world…
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I had the same thought.
I lived through Lindsay, Wagner, Beame, Koch, Dinkins and finally, Rudy. The Guiliani experience was transforming not only for NYC, but for me personally. I turned sharply to the Right and I have never looked back. I was never a leftist and was pretty conservative to begin with, but I was still a Democrat :)
New York is about as much of a melting pot of different beliefs and different cultures as it gets. Yes, the values are different from Red State America, and when one is the Mayor or Governor in a predominately liberal city or State one has to keep the majority’s views in mind and tread cautiously.
Rudy would have more, not less latitude to demonstrate his conservativism as President.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 7:31 PM
You are making a fool of yourself. For you to suggest that the only reason we got tax cuts from was because of Congress is as ignorant and imbecilic as it gets.
You seem to be confusing the fact that without a Republican Congress we never would have had welfare reform under Clinton.
I’m beginning to think that you are really a Moonbat, and Ron Paul is the guy for you.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM
We should listen to what Fred Kaplan has to say because_________?
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Because if we only listen to people who say what we want to hear, we don’t learn very much.
MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I can see why New Yorkers are all giddy about Rudi. He was a lot better than Dinkins, et al. He cleaned up the drawing room. But that doesn’t mean we want to promote a downstairs maid to house steward.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 7:53 PM
No one who lived through the New York of the 70s and 80s would say something like that. It wasn’t just what Rudy did as mayor, as AG of New York he single-handedly toppled the Italian Mob. The streets in New York are better than ever, tourism is flourishing, and the mob doesn’t run things the way they used to.
Rudy is a leader. He’s not some “downstairs maid”.
Its Tommy on October 6, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I like Rudy for the most part. This election is about two big issues in my mind and about 30 little (or smaller ones)
The biggies, The war on terror #1, Rudy would be a great choice in this area I believe.
#2 Border security, I am afraid Rudy would be weak in this one. And that is why I don’t back him now.
Abortion, Social Security, Tax cuts, Gun control, the Supreme Court don’t really matter if we can’t take care of the biggies.
So, I don’t want to see Rudy get the nomination because of my feeling that he would fail us on biggie #2.
But of course, if he is the guy in the end, I will hold my nose and pull the lever for him.
conservnut on October 6, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Grow up Bryan, people like you will be directly responsible for 8 years of Hillary/Obama.
Hilts on October 6, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Wow… nice… take a page from KOS and the Dems, and don’t argue the FACTs, just put down your opposition.
I happen to be giving Credit where credit is actualy due.
Once again, since you don’t seem to have read the Constitution, its the CONGRESS who creates tax policy, and decides the budget, not the President. Just as I don’t give credit to Clinton for the balanced budget, I don’t give credit to Bush for lower taxes…
And I don’t overly blame the elder Bush for his “read my lips no new taxes” debacle… even though he could have used his veto pen.
And I don’t give Presidents credit for good economys… its really out of their hands.
I know they want to take credit… and their oponents want to place blame on them if its not great, but its really not within their power to truly affect the economy EXCEPT where foreign policy impacts the economy.
But never mind… go ahead… apparently I’m just a fool who knows nothing of Politics, history, or economics…
/sighs… shakes his head, and wanders off to find an intelligent conversation… maybe with the dog…
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 8:13 PM
You are 100% right. I lived through the sinkhole of the Lindsay, Beame, Koch, Dinkins years. Rudy did a magnificent job turning NYC around. The yahoo wing of the GOP is suicidal.
Hilts on October 6, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Bryan thanks,
You covered all my concerns as well. Of all the candidates I like Hunter best. Then get attacked by others who also think that he is the best candidate but “he does not stand a change”. It is exactly because of people like that that he does not stand a change. I’ll support Hunter till we have chosen our candidate and only then will I abide by the choice of my fellow “conservatives?”
SIJ6141 on October 6, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Rudy promises strict constitutionalist judges which means many matters will go to the state level for resolution and the citizens will have more of a say in affairs regarding morals and ethics.
Social conservatives should not be afraid of this unless they are nervous that the majority of people in most states would see things radically differently than them. Abortion is a good example of where the pro-choicers and anti-abortionists seem a little too cagy about pushing the issue back to the states. Both probably realize that it will be resolved but not to the exact wish of their position. So both would rather see a federal or Supreme Court stamp to their liking.
I’m not as concerned about a 64 year old man having “temptations of the flesh” than I would be one in his fifties, as Clinton was.
Bradky on October 6, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Actually, giving a marriage license is no big deal. Using one is.
And if, say, Massachusetts gives Bruce and Lyle such a license, and they proceed to use it there, then the other 49 states have to recognize that MA considers them “married”. However, they don’t necessarily have to grant them all the privileges they grant to people who are “married” under their own definitions of that word, especially if Congress prescribes that the effect of a marriage between two people of the same gender doesn’t impose upon any other state that doesn’t recognize such as marriage. I believe that was called the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
Besides, there’s a practical problem with most states recognizing “gay marriage”. If the cops are called to the home of a “gay married” couple to investigate domestic violence, how are they to know who to automatically arrest? Would they arrest both spouses if they’re gay, or neither if lesbians? Or do they look at them and figure out who’s “butch” vs. “bitch”, and arrest Butch?
The Monster on October 6, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Yeah, I’m sure you know all about downstairs maids. In your dreams.
MB4,
Believe me, having grown up in the Upper East Side of NYC and having worked in the music business for many years, I am very familiar with views from all sides of the spectrum. A graduate of the crunchy granola Oberlin is not who I choose to seek out for sensible ideas, particularly if they advised the guy responsible for Black Hawk Down on defense matters.
Moreover, the artifice that you are open minded is farcical, considering, for example, your disdain for New York City based on a grand total of one visit there, not to mention your irrational disdain for Rush Limbaugh, who is one of the great conservative thinkers of our time.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Romeo13,
I have to go out for awhile. I’ll deal with your extraordinary ignorance about the roles of Congress and the Executive vis a vis tax policy later, if no one beats me to it in my absence.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 8:20 PM
There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Very good point… problem is that the defense of marriage act said that Marriage was between a man and a woman… I don’t think it said anything about States not having to recognize a marriage between same sex couples…
Actualy would be an easy fix under the Constitution, but unitl that law IS in place… ie.. that other states do not have to recognize it, then they’ll find a Liberal Judge who will interpet it in line with the Constitution.
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM
LOL… stand by folks… Danish is about to school me on what the CONSTITUTION says about the roll of Congress in the Appropriations process…
Should be interestin….
Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM
That may help to explain some things, maybe even a lot.
Grand total of three visits there and disdin would be too harsh a word. I do not disdain Limbaugh. I actually like some things about him although he is not “one of the great conservative thinkers of our time.” lol.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Rudy has Ted Olsen and others willing to help him.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Bryan is right, settling for half a Conservative is something we’ve tried already and the results aren’t satisfactory.
There’s nothing wrong with demanding the best quality Conservative Candidates get off their butts and run.
Giuliani believes the only illegal migrants are those that haven’t bobbed and weaved past the Border Patrol yet.
The rest he wants to keep.
Speakup on October 6, 2007 at 8:52 PM
The problem with the Rudy supporters is the idea that ‘Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary’.
The fact is he has less of a chance of beating Hillary as anyone mainly because he won’t be able to even carry his HOME STATE of NY where you people seem to think they ‘love’ him.
I like Hunter as the best possible candidate, but he doesn’t have the traction he will need.
McCain has the best record on the WOT and is a social conservative. He wanted to increase troop levels from the beginning, rightly called out Rumsfeld, and is the best ‘WAR CANDIDATE’ that the GOP has.
He can and will beat Hillary because he’ll win his HOME STATE and probably appeal to lots of MODERATE DEMOCRATS also because of his impressive history.
I say McCain/Duncan would be a winner over Hillary. They might even win California with Hunter.
A Rudy nomination gives the Presidency to Hillary.
ThackerAgency on October 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Yeah, Its Tommy, I agree completely. Giuliani was the right man for the job, and he performed very well under difficult circumstances. I can see why New York Republicans love him.
But does that make him the right person for President given all of his anti-conservative deeds? Sure, he was a ginormous improvement over past New York mayors, but what does that really say about whether conservatives should want him to be President?
I have no doubt Giuliani can perform the job of President, but will he perform the way I want him to?
Looking at Giuliani’s record as mayor, I would have to say no.
To test Giuliani’s bona fides let’s take abortion as an example. I’m not going to give my opinion of abortion because we’re talking about Giuliani, not me. Giuliani has supported using tax money for abortion:
And all this nonsense I see on here about Giuliani being anti-abortion but pro-choice, meaning, I guess, that he thinks abortion is wrong but also thinks women have a right to choose. Well, let’s see how wrong Giuliani thinks abortion is.
The issue isn’t about abortion, it’s about whether Giuliani will perform the job of President as a conservative.
Rudolph “Eddie Haskell” Giuliani.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 8:58 PM
ThackerAgency
Horse****! A Rudy nomination puts NY, NJ, Pa, and Ohio in play and makes Hillary have to fight for these states. Nominate one of the Duncan Hunter types and already concede Florida, Pa., NY, NJ, Ct. to the Democrats. McCain wants to close Guantanomo and stop the border fence.
Hilts on October 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Buy Danish, maybe you’ll give a description of downstairs maids that will improve the metaphor. If not, what’s the point of your comment?
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM
ABC News/Wash Post 09/27 – 09/30
General Election:
Clinton (D) 51
Giuliani (R) 43
MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
By that logic we should nominate Duncan Hunter. California has way more electoral votes than New York.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM
-
You’ll forgive me if this doesn’t bring cockles of joy to my long-suffering heart. The RKBA is a part of the Constitution and is one of the innate rights enumerated therein.
-
The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land and supersedes any state laws, even in a Federal Republic that places a heavy focus on State powers.
-
Is freedom of speech up to the states?
-
How about “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” is that up to state too?
-
What about “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?”
-
Is Rudy suggesting we should put all these up on the chopping block for Massachusetts, or California to deal with however they want?
-
Or any of our other rights?
-
If Rudy thinks so with regards to guns, then I suppose he thinks so for all our other rights as well. This gives me scant comfort.
-
If he somehow thinks that our gun rights are in a different class than the others, that gives me even less comfort.
Herikutsu on October 6, 2007 at 10:13 PM
sorry, for me McCain is far off the reservation on the border security issue. In fact while I don’t like Rudy for the same reasons, I think McCain is worse.
conservnut on October 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Who else will beat hillary that this fun bunch will vote for…NO ONE…YOU have already dismantled Fred in your minds…I’m going to start a spilled milk factory and make a ton off your misguided souls.
You fight from a position of strength not weakness…learn this please your not helping anyone with this crap.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I think the majority of this “fun bunch” will vote for whomever gets the nomination, as will I. This is a fight right now for that nomination and the discussion has once again deteriorated into “who can beat the dems” instead of who can best promote conservative ideals and win in the arena of ideas.
The constant fear of picking candidates based only on their abiltiy to beat the other side in the general election is what gave us Bush instead of a fiscal conservative.
We have to have more faith in the strentgh of our arguments folks. These are winning ideas that can’t be beaten in an honest debate.
conservnut on October 6, 2007 at 10:51 PM
No this was a rip on Rudy being fronted by Hillary.
tomas on October 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
You’re a regular Bartlett’s Quotations! Anyone can pull quotes out of a hat, which is a nice crutch when you aren’t proficient at original thinking or persuasive writing skills.
Sure, you don’t disdain Rush, you just ridicule him and use snarky Chicken Hawk arguments against him. Rush has probably done more to bring conservative thinking into the mainstream, and to analyze and define liberalism than anyone – which must drive you crazy.
There may be more pointy headed intellectuals out there like William F. Buckley, but Rush is by far the most ground-breaking and has the broadest reach. He, more than anyone, broke through the dam of liberal media control, and for that accomplishment alone he has achieved greatness.
It is one thing to say that you disagree with Rush on one point or another (and indeed I include myself in that category) but the disrespectful tone of you criticism betrays a deeper loathing of conservative principles and thought.
By the way, I just left you a message here
Are you setting yourself up as a Constitutional scholar? I certainly make no claims in that regard, but I don’t think you understand what even the average 8th grader knows – that the President sets an agenda and has a budget and policies which he hopes that Congress will enact.
Any idiot knows that taxes are levied by Congress, but for you to deny the role of the President in the process is mind boggling.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Oops, I almost forgot about Jaime.
The point of my comment was that you sounded pompous, as if you fancy yourself the Lord of the Manor.
But I tell you what:
Why don’t you tell us how Rudy Guiliani is like a downstairs maid since it was your metaphor to begin with.
And please don’t be too predictable and pull out a photo of him in drag.
Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Bryan:
“Rudy and his supporters ought to be clear about something in their own minds, as I think clarity will help them deal with social conservatives like myself”
Because it’s all about how they deal with you, right? You put the odds of a Giuliani
sex scandalbimbo eruption at 60% and then complain about getting slammed as a social conservative? Give me a break. You pose a series of rhetorical “what if’s” which in sum ask what if Giuliani is deceiving us about his real positions on the issues and the policy commitments he has made. Since you haven’t actually pointed out anything of substance at all, this piece is the very essence of demagoguery.“Social conservatives are part of the brake on the Democrats, as part of the conservative/Republican coalition.”
Social conservatives are looking to the federal government to mandate social norms. As far as I’m concerned, they look a whole lot more like Democrats than Giuliani does.
JM Hanes on October 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Some do, but there’s plenty there for people who don’t think that way to dislike too.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Social conservatives are looking to the Federal Courts to undo decades of abominable rulings, but other than that I’m a bit stymied as to how they want the Federal Government to “mandate social norms”.
There are really only two issues that I can think of – abortion and gay marriage. If the courts overturn Roe v. Wade it goes back to the States. We could get a constitutional amendment on Gay marriage but that requires a majority of the states to approve it.
What am I missing?
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Your making things up is getting really old and very tiresome.
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
An awful lot.
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Buy Danish, maka Pinocchio.
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:18 AM
So I sound pompous, like I fancy myself Lord of the Manor.
I guess if you twist my words like a liberal pundit I might.
Lincoln used the metaphor of the U.S. as a house, and it is apt. Government is the servant of the people, government officials work for the people, the President lives in the peoples’ house, etc. Of course, Giuliani doesn’t view it that way, and I can see why you support him.
I might have used the metaphor:
Giuliani cleaned up the sh*t-hole. But that doesn’t mean that we want to promote a latrine attendant to house steward.
But of course I didn’t use that metaphor because I don’t want to offend the good people of New York. And because New York is a great city.
As always, the debate is fun. A Giuliani thread without Buy Danish would be like Lost In Space without Dr. Smith. Sure, mission accomplished but we’d miss out on all the whining.
jaime on October 7, 2007 at 1:24 AM
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Your pants are on fire MB4. I have repeatedly linked directly to the thread where you used a chicken hawk argument. Lo and behold you just did it to someone else!
I didn’t ask you MB4. Believe me, I am not stupid enough to ask your opinion on anything.
LOL. Believe me, your comparison of Rudy Guiliani to a downstairs maid did not make me think of Lincoln. It is a perfectly idiotic “metaphor” so don’t flatter yourself.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Hillary has no foreign policy.
She has foreign poll-I-see.
(Guiliani can lift that line and use it to give her a wedgie at will.)
profitsbeard on October 7, 2007 at 2:11 AM
That is going into my ever expanding list of quotes! Right after Mark Twain! I will be sure to credit you though just as I do Mark and Niccolo and all the others for their gems.
Just because you want to interpret pretty much anything I say that way does not make it so. BTW, I do however reserve the right to use that argument any time I want. See the U.S. Constitution. It is no more outlawed than saying someone wants to cut and run or surrender or wants us to lose.
BTW, the ignore the tap tap yappy dog light is now on.
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Before you said that I actually used the word, now you have changed it to the argument. You are like Mike Nifong.
BTW, I forgot to say Simon says, so now Simon says the ignore the tap tap yappy dog light is now on.
MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 2:32 AM
I don’t care if this guy isn’t a extreme right winger. I will be working for this guy.
Told you the Cubs suck
LtE126 on October 7, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Yeah Duncan Hunter would really be a threat to Hillary in California. The yahoo wing of the GOP is losing it.
Hilts on October 7, 2007 at 8:54 AM
LOL… amazing how much Danish seems to know about the Constitution….. not…
When someone resorts to personal attacks in a debate, it means their position is very weak, and cannot stand up to the facts…
But don’t worry… thats just coming from another “fool”.
Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Kennedy Tax Cuts, Bush Tax Cuts, and Reagan Tax Cuts. Why do you think they are called that? Hint: Kennedy does not refer to Ted.
Do try to answer that very simple question without playing childish games.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Jaime,
One final point. Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The “people’s house” is something entirely different and refers to the House of Representatives.
It does not surprise me that the MB4 thinks that this disgusting analogy of yours is on a level with Mark Twain:
Giuliani cleaned up the sh*t-hole. But that doesn’t mean that we want to promote a latrine attendant to house steward.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Sigh… Just because you continue to misname somthing, or the MSM does, it does NOT make it fact.
Those CONGRESSES lowered those taxes. Presidents may SUGGEST, they may ask, they may even negotiate as a PARTY leader, but they cannot MAKE tax policy.
Basic seperation of powers.
Just like Iraq is NOT Bush’s war. To call it that is UNTRUE as the President CANNOT declare war (except as Congress has given away their Constitutional Power under the War Powers Act.. ie for 90 days). To call it that abrogates the responsibility of Congress in all of this… which is exactly what the Press, and Congress, wants…
And speaking of childish games… I’m very tired of your personal aspersions on my character and intelligence… I believe I’ve been nothing but civil, and argueing FACT, not once have I called you an idiot, or childish, or a fool.
But I guess expecting the same respect from you is too much to ask…
Done…
Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Romeo 13,
Please. Spare me the sanctimonious outrage.
This discussion began here:
You responded:
That was a false (and dare I say asinine premise) which implies that it makes absolutely no difference what a candidate, or President’s position on taxes is.
My response (emphasis mine):
That does not say that or imply Congress has no role, and it would be perfectly idiotic for me to claim otherwise.
Why are you arguing with me and babbling about the Constitution over something I never said and never would say?
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Your assnine assertions and childish foolish arguements once again show your lack of intelligence by missing the point entirely…
See… I can do it too…
Buh Bye!
Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM
..monkey see monkey do…
..buh bye
Romeo13butt monkey…Mcguyver on October 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Romeo13,
I missed the point entirely? That’s rich!
Listen, why don’t you either sit home on Election Day or vote for Hillary since your point all along has been that the President’s views on taxes are largely irrelevant.
Apparently when Presidential candidates campaign on taxes, it’s just to fool gullible people like me into thinking they have any power or influence in that regard. /sarc.
Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM