He has never been elected to a state or national office. He’s a three-times married serial adulterer. He supports abortion, gun control, and gay rights. He’s opposed by both social conservatives and civil libertarians. He’s completely unelectable as a Republican candidate.
So why are so many people giddy about the prospect of Rudy Giuliani running for President?
Maybe it the "Obama Effect." Like the junior senator from Illinois, Giuliani has “The Look”, the surface appearances of a national leader that the country can rally around in a time of (perpetual) crisis. Unlike Barack--who really is a blank slate--Rudy has a record and once it’s brought to the fore the Obama Effect (“Can anyone beat him…?”) will turn into the Perot Effect (“Who thought this clown was electable…?”).
Here are seven reasons Rudy will not be the next Republican candidate for President:
Rudy is pro-choice -- Since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 there have been 29 Republican candidates over eight Presidential elections. Only three candidates (Arlen Specter, Morry Taylor, Pete Wilson – all in 1996) were pro-choice. None of them won a single primary.
Rudy is anti-gun – In June 2000, the Giuliani Administration was "pleased to announce" that they were suing 26 gun manufacturers because the companies were "Deliberately undermining New York City's gun control laws by flooding other markets which have less stringent gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City..." The mayor’s police commissioner, Howard Safir, even proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections. Kiss those NRA voters goodbye, Rudy.
Rudy was a mayor – If you’re an incumbent Senator your chance of being elected President are almost nil. In the nation's history, only John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding have been elected directly from the U.S. Senate to the Presidency. Since 1960 forty Senators have sought the office – and lost every time. If you’re a Congressman you have a better chance, though you'll need to be a Vice President first (re: Truman, Nixon, Bush I). Your best shot is to be a governor: seven of the last eight presidential campaigns have been won by former governors. So what are the odds that a candidate whose only qualifying office was as a mayor will sleep in the White House? None. The only President that was a mayor was Grover Cleveland (mayor of Buffalo). But Cleveland was also the Governor of New York. If Guiliani was serious about being President he should have first served his time in Albany.
Rudy is a philandering jerk -- Giuliani began dating his third (and current) wife, Judith Nathan, while still married to his second wife, Donna Hanover. Ms. Hanover found out her marriage was ending when her soon to be ex-husband announced the separation during a press conference. This is enough to lose him the key demographic of bitter ex-wives.
Rudy has no foreign policy experience – In our dangerous age of global threats, credibility on foreign policy would cover a multitude of sins. Unfortunately for Giuliani, he has no credibility at all. He's proven himself as a solid leader in the wake of a national disaster. But he's bucking to be Commander-in-Chief, not the head of FEMA.
Rudy is at odds with the GOP platform -- “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said in 1997, putting him in opposition to two key planks of the Republican Party platform. The GOP will either have to jettison Giuliani or their platform. Guess which one they’ll choose?
Rudy is undignified -- Seven words that will do in his candidacy: Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump. Is it silly to oppose a nomination simply because a candidate put on a dress and makeup and kissed an obnoxious cretin? Not if you care about the dignity of the Presidency. Yes, it’s anachronistic to expect a post-Clinton candidate to have the basic sense of decorum not to make an utter fool for the sake of a cheap joke. Yet you still have to wonder: would George Washington, Abe Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or Harry Truman dress in drag? Would we think less of them if they had? Of course we would. Even Jimmy Carter had more dignity than that -- and he's a Democrat.
The real question is not whether Rudy can win the Republican nomination but rather why anyone takes his candidacy seriously. It’s understandable when Democrats swoon over some completely unqualified candidate (once again, see: Barack Obama). Republicans, though, are expected to be a bit more coolly rational than the emotion-based community. Yes, its true that Rudy was a star on 9/11 and he deserves the highest praise for his leadership in a time of crisis. Yet keep in mind that George Bush was also considered to have done a stellar job during that particularly trying time in our nation’s history. When a sense of normalcy returned, though, the shine wore off the President. The same will happen with Giuliani long before he wins the GOP nomination.
And if I'm wrong? Well, then maybe Robert Novak is right. Maybe the GOP really is the stupid party. Maybe, though I doubt it. I may be wrong but I know for sure that Rudy ain't right for the GOP.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3209
1
Now, you've actually got 7 reasons. I'm not sure the last one is in the same class as the other. It isn't that Rudy has "no dignity," it's that he's had lapses of dignity. With the cross-dressing thing, he's done that three times. I wasn't aware of the latest, but he also did it twice in 1997. So, maybe a concern, still, I think it pales in comparison to the other 6.
posted on 11.15.2006 1:23 AM2
In the words of Vince Vaughn, "Erroneous Joe! Erroneous!"
(Disclaimer: I am a fundamentalist and as socially conservative as anyone).
posted on 11.15.2006 1:30 AMGiuliani is not only electable, but he has been the front runner for every GOP poll taken. Personally, I think he'll make a nice Vice-President to Mitt Romney, but I'd vote for him next if Mitt doesn't run. Here's why:
1. Giuliani is a leader, and inspiring. I've seen him speak in person, he can tear up a room. Who was the last presidential candidate who was actually inspiring? I'd say Clinton in 92' If Barack runs, we'll need someone other then Newt or John McCain to put him in his place.
2. Giuliani was a phenomenal mayor of NYC. Look at the crime/economy statistics.
3. Rudy was the face of America after 9/11, and a good one at that. He turned down millions from a Saudi prince because that prince has made horrific statements against America and Israel.
4. Rudy stated that the judges he would appoint would be "in the mold of Scalia". (I have no citation, but look it up, it's true.) I believe him too.
5. He may have been socially liberal while running NYC, but it would not be absurd or hypocritical for him to believe that America should have different regulations then NYC. I'm as pro-gun as anyone, but I can understand why Rudy would want less guns in NYC when he first came into office and approximately 32 out of every 28 citizens of New York was a victim of murder.
6. He's a strong friend of Israel.
7. He can bring in swing Independent votes, moderate democrat votes, and northern votes.
8. He's not Hillary Clinton.
9. Rudy has worked his butt off for Republicans in the past elections, he should at least have earned your respect for that.
10. Did I mention he's not Hillary Clinton?
3
Who was the last presidential candidate who was actually inspiring? I'd say Clinton in 92'
Because that's the type of leadership we need again.
3. Rudy was the face of America after 9/11, and a good one at that. He turned down millions from a Saudi prince because that prince has made horrific statements against America and Israel.
Yes, and Joe addressed that quite well. Rudy got to ride off into the sunset before hard decisions had to be made that drug Bush down from the heights of 80 +% approval ratings.
So 32 out of 28 citizens were murdered. Were they just importing people to shoot them? Regardless, if you're as pro-gun as anyone (and I think some NRA people would disagree with you.) you'd know that guns don't create crimes, people do.
posted on 11.15.2006 1:43 AM4
Brian,
(Disclaimer: I am a fundamentalist and as socially conservative as anyone).
Um, I hate to be rude, but I disagree. I’d never cast a vote for a pro-choice/pro-gay rights candidate. Since you seem to have no problem doing that so I'd say that you are less of a fundie/social conservative than I am. I'd also guess that there are about 10 million other evangelicals who are also to the right of you. ; )
1. Giuliani is a leader, and inspiring. I've seen him speak in person, he can tear up a room. Who was the last presidential candidate who was
actually inspiring? I'd say Clinton in 92' If Barack runs, we'll need
someone other then Newt or John McCain to put him in his place.
So we should choose him because he can make people cry? That maybe a reason for liberal Democrats to elect a President but conservative Republicans should be a bit more discerning.
2. Giuliani was a phenomenal mayor of NYC. Look at the crime/economy
statistics.
Yes, take a good look at the crime stats (see his Wikipedia page for a prime example). The crime stats in New York during Rudy’s tenure are almost identical to L.A. and Newark. Does Rudy get credit for reducing crime in those cities too?
3. Rudy was the face of America after 9/11, and a good one at that. He
turned down millions from a Saudi prince because that prince has made
horrific statements against America and Israel.
Noble, but it doesn’t make him Presidential.
4. Rudy stated that the judges he would appoint would be "in the mold
of Scalia". (I have no citation, but look it up, it's true.) I believe him
too.
So Rudy would nominate justices who oppose him on major issues? Perhaps he will. But if its true it just shows he’s pandering to voters.
5. He may have been socially liberal while running NYC, but it would
not be absurd or hypocritical for him to believe that America should have
different regulations then NYC.
He’s pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and anti-gun. Yet your saying he should (and will) abandon his convictions on all of those issues and become a social conservative? I don’t buy it.
6. He's a strong friend of Israel.
What Republican isn’t?
7. He can bring in swing Independent votes, moderate democrat votes, and northern votes.
I doubt it. I really think that when people know his position on the issues that his popularity will tank.
8. He's not Hillary Clinton.
You’re right, he’s not. Hillary would never admit to being as pro-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-gun as Rudy does. She’s smarter than that.
9. Rudy has worked his butt off for Republicans in the past elections, he should at least have earned your respect for that.
Respect? Yes. The GOP nomination? No.
10. Did I mention he's not Hillary Clinton?
No, Hillary admits to being a liberal Democrat. Rudy doesn't. ; )
posted on 11.15.2006 1:51 AM5
As an ex-New Yorker who actually voted for Giuliani, I'd have to say you're not even hitting the tip of the iceberg.
I wish you guys would nominate Sam Brownback...OK, he's unelectable in the general election, ...maybe Lindsay Graham would be a good choice for you guys if I had to put a non-partisan hat on.
But Rudy?
His "crackdowns" on crime did less to abate it than the demographics of a post-baby boom.
His location of the emergency response center in the WTC was idiotic.
His inability to learn the lessons of the '93 WTC bombing (make sure the police & fire departments can inter-communicate) increased the problems in 2001.
Bernie Kerik.
And yeah, this guy is a bull in a china shop. Believe it or not, one can be tough and a diplomat. Rudy isn't.
I know, 1/2 the people reading this will take what I'm saying and go "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" Fine.
That'll split the McCain vote (McCain's another guy, who, like Hilary, has an undeserved reputation simply because the media like him), and give us somebody else.
posted on 11.15.2006 7:50 AM6
Regarding the matter of presidential "qualifications," if the GOP was happy running George W. Bush, then I'd say they set the bar pretty low. True, the shameful little pissant we call our president had some time in as governor of Texas, but his was a lackluster performance - and not a lot of foreign policy was demonstrated beyond courting Saudis and, believe it or not, the Taliban.
I hope you guys do run Rudy, however. For some reason, you seem to believe we'd put up a Hillary or Obama, which ain't gonna happen. So we can dream, too. C'mon, send in a creampuff.
posted on 11.15.2006 8:11 AM7
approximately 32 out of every 28 citizens of New York was a victim of murder.
Hmmmmm. The criminals shot them dead, then shot them again. I suppose Rudy is responsible for their resurrections?
Same song I sang when everyone around me was cheering for Colin Powell - what does he believe? At least with Rudy, he has told us. Noone even knew what Powell believed. But he was a hero & leader. And a winner. Will you sacrifice principles for winning?
posted on 11.15.2006 8:13 AM8
Rudy is a nice enough guy (even if he sheds his dignity once in a while - hey, I'm from WV and used to that), and he certainly is an inspiring leader, like President Clinton (but minus the facial emoti-cons). I would never vote for someone because he's a nice guy. And his leadership skills are great, but look at Clinton's presidency and its lack of "legacy". Clinton is still trying to gin up some sort of "legacy". Leadership skills are nice, but they don't pay the bills.
Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned: I will vote for a man or woman who most closely represents the values I hold. Operationally, I want this person to (1) propose legislation that embodies those values and fight for it, (2) veto legislation that violates those values, (3) ensure that executive regulatory power refelects those values, and (4) appoint judges who will view themselves as legal experts rather than sociologists, psychologists, and moral philosophers.
As far as I can tell, Guilani only passes on #4. Hence, if he runs, I won't vote for him unless his opponent is someone like Hillary Clinton. She's already on record as intending to hand over our personal health decisions to authority figures. I figure I am perfectly capable of making those decisions for myself and that the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution protect the right to make those medical decisions that are between me and my doctor.
posted on 11.15.2006 8:14 AM9
I have to agree with Joe that I would never vote for Giuliani (unless he repudiated his former social policies as Mitt Romney has done). If he wins the Republican nomination, I'll vote Constitution party or just write-in a candidate.
BUT
The Democrats could do worse than run Giuliani as THEIR candidate. Sure, he'd make Hilary look conservative by comparison, but the Democrats haven't run someone of his caliber in quite a while. Though of course, I'd rather Rudy have a change of heart and become a true-blue conservative after all.
posted on 11.15.2006 8:48 AM10
I'm a Christian, but not a Republican. (OK, you can close your gaping mouth now.) Jesus wasn't a Republican either. Jesus wasn't after any particular political change. Jesus sought to change the culture from the bottom up, not from the top down. Therefore, I don't really care what Rudy thinks about abortion, because what he thinks isn't going to change anybody's mind.
Probably the best argument against Rudy that Joe put forward was the philandering jerk argument, but wait, we had one of those as president recently didn't we? Nobody's perfect.
What is most important to me right now is that the President have the intestinal fortitude to do what he thinks is right, and not be beholden to polls like you know Hillary is going to be. I don't want a politician in office, I want someone with principles. (I like McCain in this regard as well. GWB has been not one of the worst presidents, but IMHO one of the best in one of the hardest times. Imagine what would have happened to us if Gore had won in 2000. *shudder*)
Rudy has proven that he can lead a city through it's darkest hour, and that's what I'm looking for in a President.
posted on 11.15.2006 9:01 AM11
Rudy has no foreign policy experience – In our dangerous age of global threats, credibility on foreign policy would cover a multitude of sins. Unfortunately for Giuliani, he has no credibility at all. He's proven himself as a solid leader in the wake of a national disaster. But he's bucking to be Commander-in-Chief, not the head of FEMA.
The intelligence division of the NYPD frequently outpeforms federal intelligence counterparts on several frounts. So, gotta give him credit there.
A lack of foreign policy experience didn't stop the current president, the one before him (Clinton), the one before the one before that one (Reagan) [his VP - George Bush made up for that], and the one before that one (Carter)[he didn't even bother finding a VP to make up for that shortcoming]
He's not unelectable; but if you want a Christian and a Conservative in office you'll have to find a pragmatist and not an ideologue. The 2008 Election will be won by someone viewed as a moderate. The general public (including me) are tired of those who will sacrifice results for ideology.
posted on 11.15.2006 9:01 AM12
Raven For some reason, you seem to believe we'd put up a Hillary or Obama, which ain't gonna happen.
For some reason? Perhaps it’s because those are the only two candidates being seriously mentioned. But I’m curious to hear who you think is really going to be the nominee. Could it be [Insert name of some Kos-approved insanely liberal pol]?
George Operationally, I want this person to…
Excellent list, George!
AS The Democrats could do worse than run Giuliani as THEIR candidate.
The Democrats should run Giuliani as their candidate. He wouldn’t have to change his positions on the issues and he’d be far more liked by their base.
Ben in Boston Therefore, I don't really care what Rudy thinks about abortion, because what he thinks isn't going to change anybody's mind.
What the President thinks about Iraq probably won’t change anybody’s mind either. But it sure has an impact on the world. For better or worse, what President’s (and Supreme Court Justices) believe have a way of shaping culture (see: Roe v. Wade).
What is most important to me right now is that the President have the intestinal fortitude to do what he thinks is right, and not be beholden to polls like you know Hillary is going to be.
Because he is so unacceptable to conservatives, Rudy will be more beholden to the polls than would McCain or Romney.
Justin A lack of foreign policy experience didn't stop…
I agree that in and of itself a lack of foreign policy experience is not a nomination-killer. The problem for Rudy is that “national security” is the one area where people think he’d make a good leader. Without some knowledge of how he’ll handle himself on the global stage, though, it’s hard to see what they are basing that perception on. Sure, Rudy would make a good Handholder-in-Chief to see us through attacks on the nation. But I’d prefer to have a President who knew how to prevent such attacks in the first place.
He's not unelectable;..
He’s not only unelectable, he’s unnominable (is that even a word?). When the primary season comes, he won’t make it past the socially conservative South Carolina.
posted on 11.15.2006 9:54 AM13
I understand Obama doesn't have a ton of experience, but I can't get the whole "blank slate" comment. The guy is the first politician I've heard in awhile that actually has something reasonably intelligent to say in interviews. See the recent Sojourner's article, he's far from a blank slate. I'm not sure he's ready to be president, but he's certainly miles ahead of a lot of the other bozos out there and can certainly think rings around the current president.
posted on 11.15.2006 10:26 AM14
I understand Obama doesn't have a ton of experience, but I can't get the whole "blank slate" comment.
"Blank slate" doesn't refer to a lack of articulate and praiseworthy opinions, but IMO rather refers to a publicly-available track record that shows what a person truly believes.
posted on 11.15.2006 10:47 AM15
Joe: Regarding Shrillary and the Big O: "Perhaps it’s because those are the only two candidates being seriously mentioned."
The question is, what do you mean by "serious" and who, exactly, is doing the mentioning? Both of those turkeys are the darling picks of Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Hewitt, and the rest of Right Wing Hate Radio. Conservative writers love to give them page inches, too. They are trying to force these names outward as conventional wisdom. Trying way too hard and failing miserably.
What they do have, I'll grant you, is name recognition. The average American can't name the veep or a single member of the Supreme Court. Given such widespread apathy and ignorance, solid Democratic presidential hopefuls won't poll well. So early sampling is not going to be valid.
Seeing as how we're two years out yet and the Dream Team - your Democratic Senate and Congress Majority Party - has yet to take over the reins, it's a bit early to see who's going to do well in the primaries. Some names will be emerging, especially now that Democrats are going to dominate news coverage.
Historically, very few senators have won their primaries and fewer have gained the presidency. It's a bit easier for congressmen to bridge the gap, but generally speaking it's our governors who tend to succeed in their runs. But if we could draw from Congress for the next ticket, Russ Feingold, Mark Warner, and Wesley Clark are currently doing well in straw polling among the cognoscenti. Russ says he'd only consider VP, and I'd rather he stay in the Senate, anyway.
Clark is the early frontrunner worth watching because he brings military cred and polls insanely well with the youth vote. Unlike most GOPers, he's actually intelligent, articulate, and forthright.
You never know about Edwards, but I think he's still green. Maybe in '12. Gore could make a strong run but he's not showing any interest. So that's the Raven's preliminary playbook. Oh, and about Obama and Hillary, let me dissect those for you and crush any dreams you might have that we'd risk the presidency by running pushovers you guys could beat with a drunken ferret. Obama is, I hate to say, an African American. Neither he, nor Condi, nor Powell, can overcome the kind of mentality that Corker used to advantage with his anti-Ford "call me!" ads. I might be a crazed, America-hating liberal who dreams of snatching all your money and giving it to indolent welfare cheats, but I'm a realist and understand that we're not going to be electing any kind of minority anytime soon. Not while our leaders tend to run around calling black people "macaca."
As for Hillary, well, she's a woman. That's a huge hurdle right there. Look, just beating you people and putting an end once and for all to your dreams of a New Christian Nation run by theologically indoctrinated crazies whose eyes spin in red-and-white spirals is going to be hard enough. We don't need to set historical precedents at the same time by running the "first-ever this or that." And Hillary is Hillary. AKA: Rhymes with "rich." A triangulating weasel who meets with industry executives all the livelong day. She's corrupted, out of touch, shrill, untrustworthy, and a war hawk. Gotta admit, she usually votes well and has a great record in the Senate. But I wouldn't trust her for a second - and I don't know any Democrats who would. In early polling she normally comes up dead last.
And rightwingers sell books with titles like, "Why Hillary Will Be Elected President Unless You Stop Her!" Why on earth would we run a candidate who is absolutely guaranteed to polarize the electorate and mobilize the Bush broken-glass base? I can imagine a LOT of Republicans and Independents voting for Wes Clark. I can't imagine one voting for Hillary. We don't need a lightning rod here and we understand that you people hate Hillary the way we detest Chimpy McFlightsuit. We're gonna field a candidate with broad, centrist appeal who can hopefully heal some of the rifts caused by Rovian zero-sum politics.
Hope we cleared that up.
posted on 11.15.2006 11:40 AM16
Raven,
Every post you make exposes your small-minded bigotry further and further. What do you bring to the table? Nothing.
posted on 11.15.2006 12:09 PM17
Your six words are actually seven.
Obama does have a record, by the way. His time in the Illinois state legislature left a record that makes him look like Dick Gephardt. It's only his ability to talk center while voting far left that has people enamored of him. The truth will out.
I'm fairly sure most Republicans would prefer him to Hillary. There are few issues where he's more liberal than she is, even if she sometimes pretends otherwise. If it's one or the other, I'd prefer the one who will nominate better judges, and that's Rudy. Elections are choices between two people, not choices between people and ideal candidates. If I took the line that I could never vote for a pro-choice candidate when both candidates are pro-choice, I'd have to do it with every other issue when I disagree with a candidate on something important, and then I'd never vote. That's a pretty silly attitude when you take its consequences seriously. I think reason would win out if it came down to Giuliani and Hillary, and most conservatives would realize that he's the more preferable of the two.
As for the consistency issue, I think he's fine. Even if he thinks abortion should be legal, and Scalia disagrees, he might acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to abortion and thus appoint judges who agree with Scalia on that. It's those who will appoint judges who decide cases based on outcomes rather than process who are judicial activists, and that's probably what Giuliani doesn't want, even if it means his policy views will be at odds with the judges' decisions.
posted on 11.15.2006 12:33 PM18
I'm surprised you didn't mention the time Rudy really committed political suicide, when he blamed US troops for missing weapons in Iraq... I watched that as it happened, and thought to myself "There go his presidential ambitions."
posted on 11.15.2006 12:43 PM19
(Disclaimer: I am a fundamentalist and as socially conservative as anyone).
Rudy would want less guns in NYC when he first came into office and approximately 32 out of every 28 citizens of New York was a victim of murder.
Hmmmm, something doesn't seem right about that stat unless Brian's a fundamentalist who believes in very rapid reincarnation.
Joe
4. Rudy stated that the judges he would appoint would be "in the mold of Scalia". (I have no citation, but look it up, it's true.) I believe him too.
So Rudy would nominate justices who oppose him on major issues? Perhaps he will. But if its true it just shows he’s pandering to voters.
I thought Scalia supporters were advocates of judicial restraint. It would seem to be perfectly consistent, therefore, to oppose doing something by judicial decision but support it by legislative.
BTW, exactly what gay rights does Rudy support that you oppose?
Probably the best argument against Rudy that Joe put forward was the philandering jerk argument, but wait, we had one of those as president recently didn't we? Nobody's perfect.
A pretty poor argument IMO. When exactly did Republicans fool themselves into thinking they could peer into people's private marriages, diagnose problems and assign guilt thru reading the tabloids? Reagan moved the GOP beyond the quaint notion of never letting a divorcee get the nomination.
posted on 11.15.2006 1:21 PM20
Additionally I don't think gun control is the hot button issue it used to be. This is just a gut feeling, but on the national level I think the gun control skeptics have an edge over advocates in both parties. It would be relatively easy for Rudy to position himself as an agnostic on the issue, advocating that the states decide for themselves.
posted on 11.15.2006 1:56 PM21
I notice that Raven's playbook didn't include any of the current highly touted dem leadership, e.g. Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin as potential condidates. Hmmm, wonder why? Is this the dream team to usher in the most "transparent and ethical congress in history?" Guess they have to open some investigations on themselves. That is one big joke of a line-up right there. But I'll refrain from calling them names. We'll let Raven take care of that when the time comes....and the time will come..
posted on 11.15.2006 4:33 PM22
I think your article would more accutaely be titled: "Why Rudy is Un-nominatable." All of your reasons apply to why Rudy couldn't get the Repub. nomination, not why he is unelectable. If by some miracle he were to be nominated, it seems almost certain that he would be electable. Polls consistently show that Rudy wins a head-to-head against Hillary and every other big name.
posted on 11.15.2006 5:26 PM23
President Bush also disagreed with some of the GOP's platform. He is willing to accept civil unions for example, which is unacceptable to most Christan Conservatives, who dictated the platform.
posted on 11.15.2006 7:18 PM24
*** Woah woah woah, a couple of slight clarifications here;
1. The sound and factual statistic of 32 out of 28 people having been murdered was supposed to be a joke, and it either went over the heads of 'Adam' and 'Inquiring Minds', or it made no sense. I tend to believe the latter. I don't know the exact number, but I know the rate was high, and dramatically decreased under Rudy's tenure, so I though the whole "approximately" would tip it off as tongue in cheek.
Joe: Given, there are many evangelicals to the right of me, but I don't think supporting Rudy (actually I support Romney) makes me left wing in any sense. If anything, I'm an optimist. Here's why:
1. I sincerely believe that Rudy could be an effective leader in the War on Terror and appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, which we both know is the only thing that matters when it comes to opposing Abortion. It is nice to know that President Bush personally believes that abortion is wrong, but it is his actions that matter, like Alito/Roberts appoitnments.
Likewise, I don't think it is absurd to think that Rudy could appoint constructionist judges who will not be pro-life, but who will recognize the common sense fact that the constitution does not forbid states from restricting and banning abortion. That is more important then his personal beliefs on abortion.
2. Your argument that being a great speaker and "bringing a room to tears" alone is not enough to make one presidential is common sense, and I clearly was not stating that. If I read the fallacies listed on your site more regularly, I could call out your fallacy on that. His speaking ability is one an accumulation of traits that make Rudy presdential.
3. "When Americans learn his positions, they will stop supporting him (brutally paraphrased)"
Huh? I said that moderates would support him, you came back with saying that his liberal views would turn off moderates and Democrats? I can see how they would hurt his chances in the primaries, but not in the general election.
4. I somewhat stated this earlier, but Rudy nominating judges who disagree with him on social issues is not at all "pandering to voters". I disagree with burning the Flag, and pornography. Would I, or you, theoretically nominate a judge who would declare those practices unconstitutional? Of course not. Judges have different roles then chief exec's. It would be principled for him to do that, not pandering.
(I feel like I have to vouch for my conservatism here; the constitution should be amended to ban the burning of the flag. Right now it's not, so regrettably, it's legal)
5. Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Pat Buchanan, are Republicans who are not friends of Israel. And Lincoln Chaffee. Typing "Lincoln Chafee, Republican" made me gag. Come to think of it, Buchanan's not a Republican anymore either. And Warner means well, but he's just senile.
Touche'. You got me on this one.
The bottom line is this Joe: The pragmatic side of me says we need Giuliani, Romney, or McCain to win. The optimist in me says we can make McCain and Giuliani into real conservatives. Tell me where I'm wrong.
posted on 11.15.2006 8:28 PM25
Why is pro-this or pro-that such an important issue for a president? Did GW not run to keep govenment small, invade Iraq because of WMDs which never existed, tell us to "Stay the course" until his poll numbers dropped below the average temp at the north pole and commit to keeping Rummy forever. If we should learn anything by now - it is not to confuse what people do with what they say.
posted on 11.15.2006 9:29 PM26
"Yet you still have to wonder: would George Washington, Abe Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or Harry Truman dress in drag?"
Would they snort coke, drive drunk, or dodge the draft?
"Republicans, though, are expected to be a bit more coolly rational than the emotion-based community."
Good one, Joe!
Seriously, I hope Joe has his way and McCain and Guiliani are rejected by republicans as candidates. They can run Gary Bauer or something. Maybe take Robert Dole out of mothballs. I bet Lamar! Alexander is still willing. Frist looks like a dream come true.
Please, please, please don't nominate McCain or Guiliani.
posted on 11.15.2006 9:53 PM27
Why is pro-this or pro-that such an important issue for a president? Did GW not run to keep govenment small, invade Iraq because of WMDs which never existed, tell us to "Stay the course" until his poll numbers dropped below the average temp at the north pole and commit to keeping Rummy forever. If we should learn anything by now - it is not to confuse what people do with what they say.
A few prescient commentators knew that GW Bush was not conservative before he was elected. I think most Republicans (myself included in 2000 but definitely not 2004) foolishly fell for his conservative ruse. Rudy's a different story. I have no reason to disbelieve him when he says he's pro-abortion, pro-gay, and anti-gun. Had I been smart, I could have seen through Bush's campaign rhetoric too. Politicians who talk conservative and then become enamored with big government are a dime a dozen. It's much more rare for a guy like Giuliani to change his stripes. He's already halfway down the liberal road. Put him in charge of a whole country with billions of dollars to promise to everyone and their mother, and you're telling me he's suddenly going to turn around?
posted on 11.15.2006 10:14 PM28
Rob:
Which Republican are you refering to 'snorted Coke'?
posted on 11.15.2006 10:15 PM29
I hope by 2008, Christians will figure out that especially in war time, not voting for the somewhat conservative candidate that has a chance of winning, is to vote for the anti-conservative candidate. Terrorism is the issue of our day and it surpasses other issues in importance...
posted on 11.16.2006 12:21 AM30
Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin
Are these people running or positioning themselves as Presidential candidates? No one talks about Antonin Scalia as a GOP candidate but that's not because Republicans don't like the job he's done on the SC.
posted on 11.16.2006 10:22 AM31
Mitt Romney? And you don't find it at all curious that at the same time he has had his great spiritual awakening he has also started running for President?
If Christian Conservatives vote for Romney then they get the candidate they deserve. They won't be electing a Christian Conservative to office, They will be electing a GOP version of Bill Clinton.
posted on 11.16.2006 12:28 PM32
First of all, there's a good chance the Evangelical Christian base will go fishing rather than vote for Romney, no matter what the man's position or track record. Reason: He's MORMON.
Christian Cult Watch, you know.
And, since this last election, I've been worried about Christians retreating into fatalism, passivity, and End Time Prophecy. Comment threads on several unrelated blogs have seen strange rant postings with Christianese buzzwords (such as "We don't have long to wait -- MARANATHA!" on a real estate blog), and a couple political blogs with a Christian bent have taken a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.
posted on 11.16.2006 2:09 PM33
"No one talks about Antonin Scalia as a GOP candidate but that's not because Republicans don't like the job he's done on the SC"
SC justices are not elected. They also aren't often, if ever, candidates for president. Why mess up a lifetime appointment for such silliness and abuse? Members of congress are.
Fact is, Pelosi's pick (Murtha) for second in command has been named by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the top 25 most corrupt members of congress. Further, he was named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal. His brother is a lobbyist. a former senior staff member of his is a lobbyist. This doesn't seem to demonstrate a serious desire to create the "most open and honest and ethical congress in American history."
Interestingly, her underlings seemed to have the common sense required to vote in the other guy. Just the first black eye for her in her brave new world. So, this is the kind of leadership you so badly craved??
posted on 11.16.2006 2:19 PM34
Maybe I should have worded that differently. Was Pelosi's backing of Murtha the best 'adult' decision? Be honest, now.
posted on 11.16.2006 2:45 PM35
Your bosses have been busy lately Joe:
Tim McClusky cheers:
Errr....Oops. Better not tell them about that post you made awhile back supporting Domestic Partnerships. Will it be recycled anytime soon? The willingness of some Christians to cause pain and suffering for others is always striking to me.
On the blog McClusky displays outrage at:
So Joe, you are a retired Marine, whats your take on this Wiccan symbol thing? Solider dies in Iraq, but can't have a symbol representing his spiritual beliefs placed on his tombstone. Keep in mind that they already allow over 25 different symbols for various faiths, - even one for an atheist.
It seems to me that this McClusky dude is all for freedom of religion in this country, but only so long as its a Christian-based group he personally approves of. I wonder, does he feel the same way about Mormons? Is the Angel Moroni verboten at Arlington or other Federal cemeteries?
Perhaps it would be more accurate for the FRC to call themselves the "Christians-only Family Research Council". They don't seem too concerned about the needs of the family of that Wiccan soldier, including his widow.
And Joe, as Managing Editor, not only do you represent the FRC, but they also represent you. Is the attitude displayed by the FRC something that you are comfortable with and think is moral? Becuase their meanspiritidness doesn't seem very Christian to me.
Although that McClusky character with his big fat head does seem to think that he personally represents Christ on earth.
May he learn the lessons of humility soon. And may they be painful lessons.
posted on 11.16.2006 6:11 PM36
Patrick (Gryph) wrote;
They won't be electing a Christian Conservative to office, They will be electing a GOP version of Bill Clinton.
Of course we won't be electing a Christian Conservative, he's Mormon after all.
But a GOP version of Bill Clinton? It's difficult to tell what you mean by that. Certainly there is no evidence that Mitt Romney is a liar or a perjurer or even an adulterer, is there?
If you mean the same in regards to policy, are you saying Mitt Romney has the same views as Bill Clinton on homosexual marriage, abortion, supreme court nominees, taxes, guns, etc?
If you believe that, you might want to look a little deeper into what Mitt Romney believes vs what Bill Clinton believes.
As of right now I intend to vote for Mitt Romney unless a better candidate comes along between now and 2008.
posted on 11.17.2006 8:29 AM37
Giuliani has been on my personal "wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher" list since his prosecutorial hey-day in the '80s. He there proved himself willing to bend the law to the breaking point and send innocent people to jail in furtherance of his political ambitions. I liked him better as a Mayor but "he made the trains run on time" isn't enough to make me want to vote for him for President. He's a seriously scary guy.
posted on 11.18.2006 8:11 PM38
Did Rudy Giuliani clean up NYC?
Yes, but he just passed the buck to small upstate counties, Montgomery in particular.
It seems that the fine ex-mayor of NYC cut a deal with small town mayors upstate to take in the undesirables NYC did not want. I recently visited my mother in a small town in Montgomery County and the town looks like a dump now. Welfare recipients linger about the streets all hours of the days looking for or doing drugs and alcohol. Thanks Rudy.
Some of the mayors have taken a hit over this but others are still in office because the new voter base loves their free room and board (welfare) that the mayors have provided.
In the end we all pay for this laziness and pass-the-buck mentality.
You know what! I hope Rudy does get elected so you people out there can too benefit from his pass-the-buck mentality. I think you’ll really enjoy watching your nice Christian neighborhoods deteriorate and fill up with the big city rejects.
posted on 11.28.2006 1:31 PMBeen Pass-the-Bucked by Rudy
39
Run what boils down to a centrist Democrat as a Republican Presidential candidate? We made that mistake twice already- both of their names were Bush. One's liberal politics gave us eight years of Chinese Bribes Clinton, the other's liberal politics cost us control of the House and the Senate.
posted on 12.19.2006 11:04 PMSorry, no.
40
RUDY HAS A MORALS PROBLEM. THREE WIVES AND CHEATED ON TWO OF THEM. BY '08, IT WILL PROBABLY BE FOUR WIVES AND CHEATED ON THREE. WASN'T HIS FIRST MARRIAGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS ANULLED WHEN HE STARTED MESSING AROUND WITH DONNA HANOVER? AND YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT CLINTON.
posted on 12.28.2006 1:04 AM41
Let me first just state that 1) I would not vote for Rudi, 2) I am a deeply passionately believer, (hence why I am making this comment). As Christians we do need to make sure we separate our personal beliefs from our Christian belief system. Now I know most of you guys are saying that's not very evangelical (look I have been in evangelical/non denomination churches since before I was even born). The issue w/me is that often things that aren't in the bible (or even things that are in the bible, but Jesus took the opposite approach to) or lumped together w/ conservative Christian beliefs. For example, this blog states that Rudi is anti gun, I think there needs to be a little bullet point or something that notes Jesus was gun neutral (at best) or something stating this is the blogger's pet peeve. It is important for the future of Christianity that distinctions (however, small) like that our made, because I do foresee (if there is not a change) a backlash against the Church in the future. Look I'm not taking sides on the gun issue (or on the immigration issue). It is just something that people need to understand. As Christians we represent _____ (fill in the blank (I hope you answered Christ)not O'Reilly, or any conservative pundit. So we do need to beware that in everything we do (blogging/blog post) we are being a light in the world, and not simply a Christianized version of the world. Okay, I felt like that was necessary so. Have a blessed New Year, to everyone and may Jesus be in your thoughts, hearts, minds, and speech.
posted on 12.29.2006 9:20 PM42
I will not vote for Rudy for many reasons.
1. He flip-flops on every issue.
2. Up until about one month ago was pro-choice. As a Christian I can not and will not vote for someone who is pro-choice. I will not vote, if that is what it comes down to.
3. Ran for senator of New York and was losing when he dropped out.
4. Anti-gunner.
5. Wanted to bull doze over the twin towers when there were still bodies there...leaving the families with no closure. (No compassion there, rudy.)
6. People around him were connected with mafia. I just heard today On Lou Dobbs about his compaign manager in North or South Caroline was into drugs.
7. His law firm is heavily involved with the Trans Texas Corridor Toll road, which will be going from Mexico to Canada. Americans will not have anything to do with the road. Foreign owned and foreign operated. So much for illegal immigration.
All the above it enough for me not to even think about voting for rudy.
posted on 06.20.2007 8:06 PM43
Well, I'm with him when it's about guns. It seems too easy for a teenager to get his hands on a fire arm and make some nasty mess in his high school building. It has to be some well applied restrictions for underages.
posted on 06.26.2007 8:34 AM44
I hope by 2008, Christians will figure out that especially in war time, not voting for the somewhat conservative candidate that has a chance of winning, is to vote for the anti-conservative candidate. Terrorism is the issue of our day and it surpasses other issues in importance...
I agree 100% with the above statement that this previous person posted. I couldn't have said it better.
posted on 07.16.2007 4:18 PMOh and by the way, Go Rudy