Why Rudy Giuliani is the man to watch, and the man who will have my vote next year:
“You must govern in America now from a sense of perspective,†Giuliani said. “The president of the United States needs a sense of perspective. The perspective you need is that this is a very very strong country. We’re not in terrible, terrible trouble. Gosh, if we’re in terrible trouble the world is gone.
“But we are not a country moving in the wrong direction or sliding down hill. The truth is we are the strongest country on earth, the strongest military power without a rival, the strongest economy on earth. The strongest democracy on earth. You have more freedom than anyone has ever had. No one has ever had more freedom than Americans. This is the greatest country in the world and the greatest country the world has ever known. We must be proud of that. We must solve our problems based on our understanding strengths, not our weaknesses.â€
This is the man who told a Saudi prince to take his $10 million check and shove it after blaming America’s “root causes” for 9/11.
Run, Rudy, run.
Hey Meryl,
I’m a new reader here, but I hope I’m welcome to comment :)
I agree with you on most of the issues you talk about here, it seems, but on this I don’t agree with you.
Rudy is a very nice person and a very gifted and has a lot of knowledge and knowhow on how country should be runned. But he is, at least IMHO, a liberal. A Republican, indeed, but a liberal one. Being pro-choice, looking favorably on gay marriage issues etc… And that’s why I am sceptical about him.
It certainly was astonishing how he led New York after 9/11, it was cool of him to tell Saudi prince to “shove it” :) etc. But he’s still a liberal.
I have been looking favorably at Mitt Romney’s ideas and running for the White House, but then again, I have problems trusting a person who doesn’t drink at all. I do trust GWB because he at least used to drink :)
I’m not an American, so I cannot influence American elections, but I’m a fan of United States and I’m a conservative.
I like RG and John McCain.
Sten, you’re welcome to comment here when the comment is within the rules, which yours is.
As for Rudy being a liberal, well, he’s known in my part of the world as a New Jersey Republican. Christine Whitman was a NJ Republican, as was Tom Kean. While that name is a swear word in conservative circles, it is a compliment from liberals.
Which is what I used to be, and now I consider myself a left-leaning centrist.
So Rudy is just perfect for me. I’m not a conservative. People generally think I am because of my stance on Israel and the War on Terror, but I have never fully left my liberal (VERY left-leaning, but not LLL) roots.
Rudy fixed New York when they said it couldn’t be done. He fixed it financially, he fixed it socially, and he kept it together during 9/11.
It comes down to this for Republicans as far as I’m concerned: Do they want to pander to their far-right base, or do they want to win the presidency in ’08?
Rudy can win. I don’t think the others are electable. And I don’t think they’ll be as great a president as I think Rudy can be.
It isn’t just 9/11 that won me over. It’s all the other things he did to a city that was in disarray and disrepair.
Rudy in ’08.
Based on what I know about him now I could vote for Rudy in the general election if he’s the nominee. I am a conservative but I think I could live with Rudy as President, especially if he does as he promised and appoints judges who are good from my point of view.
McCain lost me with the McCain-Feingold travesty of a law. We used to be told that we had to remove any restrictions on pr0nography in order to safeguard political speech. What we now have is a situation where there are no restrictions on the most vicious pr0nography but ever tighter restrictions on political advocacy and speech. Sorry, but that is bassackwards. And this stupid law did not achieve anything towards reducing the power of money in politics, which supposedly was its goal. It is partly due to ever stricter restrictions on campaign financing that we now have, according to some, a Congress with less turnover than the old Soviet Politburo.
In the primaries I’m am inclined to vote for Romney, if for no other reason than the absolutely vile religious prejudice being expressed against him as a Mormon. When people start going around saying he is unacceptable because his great-grand-father, fer crying in the night, was a polygamist, he gets my vote.
Michael, if you vote for Romney in the primaries instead of Rudy, you’re going for the unelectable guy over the one who has a chance. Voting for someone because people are voting against him is a reason, I guess, but I’d rather vote for the person I want to see as President.
Well Meryl, I’d prefer to see Jeb Bush as President to any of the current pack, but I have sufficient mooring in reality to realize that he has a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning either the nomination or the general election.
As for electability, I cannot predict that. Didn’t the Dems go for Kerry in 2004 because they thought he was the electable candidate?
Right now Romney lacks name recognition compared to McCain and Rudy. There is a year until the first primaries, since we have gone to the permanent,interminable campaign for presidential elections. Much may change in a year. Dean was the leading Dem for the 2004 election right up to the point when the voters got involved. As soon as their actual voting came he went pfft.
Some time ago there was a book published that said that the only person who can beat Hillary in ’08 is… Condi.
And Condi would make a helluva president. She’s probably one of the coolest politicians in America, she’s tough, she has knowledge and experience, she has panache, she’s presentable etc etc.
And she would attract female votes, black votes, absolutely would she attract conservative votes etc. The only downside is that she’s single. And the other downside is that she’s not running.
I got to vote for Rudy twice in NYC and I’d be glad to vote for him for President.
There are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives and security conservatives. I trust Rudy Giuliani on security, and I think he’d beat Bush’s record fiscally by not expanding the government so much.
I disagree with many conservatives on social issues. I believe true conservatism should want people to follow their own ways on social issues instead of toeing some orthodoxy rooted in medieval attitudes.
I strongly believe that democracy must protect diversity and that true social change comes from knowledge and persuasion, not judicial fiat or legislative action.
It is not hypocritical, but it is perhaps disingenuous, or might we say naive, for a “conservative” to decry Roe v. Wade, and then try to use the same kind of governmental force to decide other social issues.
Too true. Too many yahoos actually think that the President can make abortion illegal (he cannot) or make gay marriage legal (he cannot). There are those who would rather lose but make sure that the candidate remains ideologically pure (see Pamela of Atlas Shrugs website who wants Cheney to run. Cheney would be toxic).
Rudy was a terrific mayor. I voted for him three times – 1989, 1993 and 1997. NYC was never run so well as when R.G. was at its helm. The people pushing pipe dreams of Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Duncan Hunter, Jeb Bush – are all delusional. If there is no R.G. at the head of the ticket, then do not whine when Hillary/Obama have their hands on the Bible in Jan. 2009. As for Christine Todd Whitman – she was as Democratic as a Republican could be – in New Jersey. Her paying homage at Arafat’s tomb in Ramallah a couple of years ago, lost what little respect I ever had for her. Clueless Condi of the Veil “The Palestinians want peace with Israel and a better life for their children. I think I know that” has been a major disappointment and is not ready for prime time.
Ed,
“I strongly believe that democracy must protect diversity and that true social change comes from knowledge and persuasion, not judicial fiat or legislative action.”
So you would be against the US Supreme Court legislating from the bench to force on the country social changes for which there is no democratic consensus in their favor? That’s the basis of the conservative complaint about Roe vs Wade. That’s the basis of the conservative complaint about the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decreeing that “gay marraige” must be introduced. Liberal social policies are introduced without democratic procedures and without persuasion, by judicial fiat or bureaucratic sleight-of-hand. Glad to see that you agree with social conservatives about that.