Today on Blogcritics
Home » Rudolph Giuliani? What Were We Talking About?

Rudolph Giuliani? What Were We Talking About?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Okay, I’ve had enough. I know the empty-vessel Shill Media struggle for something, anything to talk about, this being the lot of those intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. But Rudolph Giuliani for president? Please. There’s more chance I’ll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros’ next soiree.

I know a little something about Giuliani. Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City. And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America’s Mayor. Don’t hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart.

Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I’m not herein trying to sound the alarm. Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor. He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.

I’ve never witnessed a more laughable game of collective “Let’s pretend” than the media’s Giuliani coverage. Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.

He’s more like the man who will be beaten – and by more than one candidate, mind you.

The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing. All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn’t pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 – he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour – and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. And on his list of credits I’ll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life.

This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events. And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats. They have an “R” next to their names.

As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the “Gay Pride” parade. He actively supported “gay rights” and said he was “proud” of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage). Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is “good and normal.”

Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as “partial-birth abortion” should not be outlawed in NY. And while he now says he is “personally opposed to abortion,” he also once asserted, “I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion].” I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.

Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and, more odious still, showed his end-justifies-the-means lawyer colors, exercising his mayoral power to the end of filing suit against the gun industry. He has supported the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action and has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits. He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating “most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.” Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994. And, as damnable as anything else, Giuliani upheld policies that make NYC a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Anyway, enough about that. You get the idea.

My point is that Giuliani’s golfer son, Andrew, has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination. Allow me to lend this some perspective.

The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president. And given the nature of these two individuals, it may be lamentable that this is not so. But now let’s talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible.

To the best of my knowledge:

– No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.

– Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination.

– Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination.

And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?

What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani. What is this man thinking? Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo? Talk about believing your own press clippings.

The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man’s inviability. The obvious answer is that it’s an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona. It’s also possible some in the Shill Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009. Then there’s the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center. They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America. My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.

Anyway, I don’t know what Giuliani’s presidential “exploratory committee” told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost. Mr. Mayor, you’d stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing. But, really, you’d be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing. You miss left far too much to be a contender.

Powered by

About Selwyn Duke

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Selwyn, I hate to tell you this, but there are a LOT of real Republicans who think that some of the things you see as flaws for Giuliani are assets. We’re sick of the hijacking of the party by religious whack-jobs with a ridiculous agenda of hate and self-righteousness and want to see the party return to its original values of individual liberty, personal responsibility and minimal government.

    Giuliani resonates with us. Based on the issues he’s the most libertarian rated of the candidates except for Ron Paul, and his political pragmatism is appealingly realistic and essential for any candidate who actually wants to win a national election.

    You also need to ask yourself whether you’d rather have an ideologically pure candidate and lose, or a more mainstream candidate and win. Can we afford to let the Democrats take the Whitehouse in 2008?

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.

    Every nominee in the last 50 years except for our current president and Reagan has been at best neutral on abortion and as far as I can tell they have all secretly been pro-choice while maintaining a neutral or placating facade for the pro-life fanatics. Even GWB seems to be much more personally inclined towards choice than he’s publicly willing to admit.

    Goldwater was openly pro-choice, not to mention in favor of gay rights.

    Nixon appointed the justices who upheld Roe and many of the judges who tore down state anti-abortion laws. Need I say more?

    Gerald Ford on Larry King – “Betty and I are pro-choice, but we can work with people who are pro-life on the broader issues involving Republican philosophy.”

    Bob Dole – sucked up to the religious right a lot, but basically pro-choice.

    George H. W. Bush – quietly pro-choice until retirement. now openly pro-choice.

    I think you missed the mark on this one – Rudy fits right in.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Dave..why do you think Romney, Mccain, Brownback, Huckabee etc…. are all trying to be the “true conservative?”

    The GOP thought they were getting a real conservative in Bush and got screwed. I don’t think they’re looking for someone like Rudy in 2008.

    He’s never going to get the GOP and I thought that you were capable of realizing that. But maybe I just gave you too much credit.

  • Nancy

    Mmmm…I don’t think he’ll get the nod, either: he’s not enough of a fascist for the religious reich which currently owns the GOP; Dave has that right. I concur he’d do better to run as n Independent – or even a conservative Dem.

  • ToranagaSama

    The Great Depression all over again….

    Here’s the most glorious reason why Giuliani will when the nomination.

    He’s the ONLY Republican that can beat Billary and take New York.

    I don’t know for how long, but in my adult lifetime New York has been a solidly Blue state within the Electoral College.

    In recent times, there is one thing the Republicans have demonstrated their absolute superiority vs. Democrats, that is strategizing electoral votes; note, “the architect”, Carl Rove.

    Think about it. Is there anyway in HELL a Democratic candidate wins the election w/o carrying New York.

    Obviously not!

    This is, precisely, what Giuliani offers the Republican Party. New York. Giuliani will win New York and, as a consequence, the election.

    From a Republican perspective, isn’t this worth a little compromise in 2008? If not, what is the Republican alternative? Billary or, gasp, Obama?

    When it comes down to it, Republicans are far more rational than Democrats. In the climate of Iraq amid the failures of the Bush administration, I think its clear to Republican voters that the choice is NOT Romney, McCain nor any other Republican vs. Giuliani.

    The choice is between losing and winning.

    There is only one choice Giuliani vs. Billary or, gasp, Obama.

    What of McCain, whose *turn* it should be. Unfortunately, McCain has no chance in New York vs. the Billary machine; and as I’ve alluded no Republican candidate can beat the machine, in this climate of Iraq.

    Save, Giuliani, who IS New York. Thirty-one electoral votes; let me repeat, 31 electoral votes—that is New York. So, let us look at the red/blue electoral map of 2004. How can/will it change in 2008?

    The Democrats appear to be under the deluded notion that the map, as a consequence of a poorly administered war, will suddenly, in 2008, turn BLUE! Such people are deluding themselves.

    The map will remain essentially the same, again with Florida and Ohio being the *swing* states. Let’s presume that there will be a war consequence, equally let us presume that the Republicans demonstrate their mastery of political strategizing.

    In doing so, let us continue to presume, and that the two states split, with the Dems taking Ohio, and the Republicans maintaining Florida.

    That would be a 20 point electoral swing to the Democrats and give them the election.

    Now, throw in a Giuliani candidacy with the reality of his taking New York red!

    That would be a 31 vote swing in favor of the Reds—game over!

    I mean do the Democrats truly think that, simply because of the war and the alleged Bush deception that the Red states are going to turn Blue?

    Ridiculous.

    The polarization won’t be broken so easily, or simply.

    I know one thing, if Giuliani wins the nomination, that in 2008 on Election Day, when the results come in—I’m staying inside, because bodies will be dropping from the NY skyscrapers like it’s the Great Depression all over again.

    In 2008, with a Republican victory, the country will fall into political chaos, as the Democrats implode and the more radical elements explode ala the 1960/70s.

    Only one man has demonstrated the ability to guide us through it all, and that man is Giuliani, America’s Mayor, future president of the United States—–a New Yorker.

    Giuliani has the potential to be the third great New York American President, the two previous bared the name Roosevelt. Giuliani just may turn out to be Teddy and Franklin rolled into one.

    In this climate of Iraq, the one over-riding thing that Americans crave is Leadership, the most overwhelming Giuliani quality. This election will not turn upon issues of morality, like the last, but the vacuum of leadership brought about by two terms of the Bush administration.

    Is there another Republican with the demonstrated leadership qualities of Giuliani? Obviously not.

    Is there a Democratic candidate with demonstrated leadership qualities to rival Giuliani? Obviously not.

    Billary is a joke in such regard, and Obama’s popularity evokes my premises that the nation craves leadership. Yet, despite Obama’s popularity, his is only the perception of leadership which pales in comparison to Rudy.

    Versus Rudy, Obama will not take New York.

    So, we are left with the math, do your own calculations, it will come out close to the same as my own: 289 electoral votes vs. 249 electoral votes.

    Rudy carries NY and wins.

    The Great Depression all over again…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Very well put, Toranga, except that I don’t see the connection to the great depression since our economy is doing quite well. We need Rudy’s leadership for other obvious reasons – including making the Democrats implode and driving the religious fanatics out of the GOP.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Except that the big kahunas of the GOP don’t think like you two do. They’re very unwilling to take risks, especially after getting their nuts kicked in the last election by voters they thought they had a stranglehold on. So they’re not going to want to stick their necks out w/Giuliani, but will more likely try to cleave to the religious reich & elderly church ladies that they know can be delivered to the GOP by the likes of Falwell & Co. If they were inclined to take risks, they’d be Libertarians or Dems, now, wouldn’t they.

  • Tara

    Hmmm…liberal Republicans..blue dog Democrats…nobody knows what anybody stands for anymore; relentless pandering has cast a nebulous screen over the eyes of the people.

    Rudy is not afraid to display his true nature. Some of his views may not be completely in sync with all Republicans; this false image of a what a “perfect” conservative should or should not be is what is producing false leaders.
    I say the same for the Dems too. The anti-war left is willing to sacrifice Hillary if she does not act out the precise narrative they envision.
    So then what happens? The High School Class President syndrome occurs. You know, when the football team gets promised new uniforms on one day; the next day the Band gets hope for new instruments, etc. And much like in high school, the candidate that narrow-casts the student body, operating with selective group pandering, gets elected. The problem…The student body finds out quickly that the elected cannot deliver all those promises to all the groups (alas).

    True leadership is recognizing that people are not going to agree on every position which you concluded upon. Rudy is a true leader who stands by his convictions. When the contemporary Republican base has altered the foundations of conservatism, and then claims that a Reaganite conservative, Rudolph Giuliani, is too liberal, one can see how much damage that false leaders and self-aggrandizing panderers have done to the Grand Ole Party.

    To be the Commander-in-Chief, one needs leadership as the primary qualification. In the age of the grand consolidation, under the auspices of globalization, America, more than ever, needs leadership in the international arena. I do not dismiss abortion, gay rights, or other social issues as trivial, however, we must prioritize our most pressing issues, and those mentioned must be placed lower on the list of concerns at this juncture in history.

    A stalwart representative of America, with true courage and moderation, lies in the ablities of Rudy Giuliani.
    Go Rudy ’08!

    Tara

  • methuselah

    “Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination. ”

    Hmmm. What are you suggesting?

  • Dan

    ToranagaSama’s comment about placing New Yorks 31 electorals in the “sane” column is something I hadn’t even thought of. A big overlook for me.

    Until now my main reason for favoring the G-man was his stated desire to pick Supreme Court Judges with strict constructional inclinations. Preferably, very young ones with family histories of longevity.

    If he’d do that, I’d be willing to join him in gay pride parades, and even help pay for his daughters abortions.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Great post!

    Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be a single “true” conservative running for the GOP’s nomination in 2008…well, maybe Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback, but those guys have no chance… :-/

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Valid point, ToranagaSama. Rudy is the ONLY Republican who could possibly win NY. And NY has a big chunk of electoral votes. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine a Democrat winning the White House in 2008 WITHOUT winning NY.

    But I disagree that Rudy would be a shoo-in to win NY. Hillary could beat him (narrowly) there.

    And Romney has a decent chance of winning New Hampshire, Maine, and perhaps even Massachusetts (all Blue states) if he gets the GOP nomination. That’s one incentive to support his candidacy…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Romney’s not exactly a ‘true conservative’ by any stretch of the imagination.

    And to you newcomers who think the GOP is the property of the religious right, think again. The GOP started out as a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party, and eventually evolved to be accepting of a wide range of social philosophies – the idea of the ‘big tent’.

    Until relatively recently the social conservatives were democrats, but they got driven out and started drifting into the GOP and taking advantage of its hospitality, and suddenly they think they own the party. Not true, never true, and it’s time to put them in their place.

    Dave (owner of the domain takebackthegop.com)

  • Lumpy

    U need to do something with that takebackthegop.com website. It’s kinda bare. At least put a little shrine to rudy there or something.

  • Arch Conservative

    RJ Elliot…

    NH is not a Blue State. Never has been. It used to lean red but now with the influx and influence of all the Massholes it has become purple.

    There are more independents in NH than Reps or Dems and there are more Reps than Dems.

    Please educate yourself before making innaccurate remarks in the future and slandering my state by calling it a blue state RJ.

    As for Romney…..I think he’d definitely carry NH against Hillary and would also have a very good shot at carrying the New England Blue state hellholes MA, CT, RI. He’d also have a good chance at winning the 2 New England blue states that aren’t complete shitholes, VT and ME.

    Here’s a little recap on on New England on the New england states for you RJ.

    Massachusetts – Biggest of the blue state shitholes. terrible place to live.

    Rhode Island – Second biggest blue state shithole to live in.

    Connecticut – Third biggest blue state shithole.

    Vermont – Still a blue state, but has some, not many, but some redeeming qualities.

    Maine – A blue state but such a beautiful place to and that in addition that it’s not nearly as blue as MA make this state a decent place.

    New Hampshire – A great state with an independent streak that is being more and more co-opted every day by transplanted Ted Kennedy loving douchebag Massholes.

  • Arch Conservative

    Dave the GOP will be what it will be, just as the Dem party will be what it will be.

    You’re right the Dem party used to be full of social conservatives but the party has become beholden to far left anti-American scum for the most part.

    Social conservatives have just as much right as anyone else to express their beliefs and influence American politics and many of them have found a home in the GOP.

    If you don’t like that you don’t have to vote GOP Dave. Simple as that.

    But I’m proud of the fact that the GOP has become home to social conservatives and Christians who value traditional, decent, American values and do not embrace the morass of political correctness and moral relativism that is today’s democratic party.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    U need to do something with that takebackthegop.com website. It’s kinda bare. At least put a little shrine to rudy there or something.

    Keep an eye on it. I figure it’s still awfully early in the election process, but in the next few weeks I plan to have it fully fleshed out. Some of the material I’m writing for it will probably show up here as well.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dave the GOP will be what it will be, just as the Dem party will be what it will be.

    Perhaps, but those of us in the two parties certainly have a right – even an obligation – to do what we can to set them on the right course.

    You’re right the Dem party used to be full of social conservatives but the party has become beholden to far left anti-American scum for the most part.

    They traded one group of anti-american scum for another. The problem is that the ones they got rid of came to the GOP.

    Social conservatives have just as much right as anyone else to express their beliefs and influence American politics and many of them have found a home in the GOP.

    Sadly true. I’m all for them expressing their beliefs, but I’d prefer that they do it in their own political party.

    If you don’t like that you don’t have to vote GOP Dave. Simple as that.

    Or I can work to take back the party from them.

    But I’m proud of the fact that the GOP has become home to social conservatives and Christians who value traditional, decent, American values and do not embrace the morass of political correctness and moral relativism that is today’s democratic party.

    Except that these social conservatives are just as anti-American in their own way as the far left socialists, because they also want to impose a social agenda on the people by force of government.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Please educate yourself before making innaccurate remarks in the future and slandering my state by calling it a blue state RJ.”

    Dude, it went for Kerry in 2004, was my point…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Romney’s not exactly a ‘true conservative’ by any stretch of the imagination.”

    Well, he IS a Mormon…but then so is Harry Reid… :-/

  • MCH

    “Keep an eye on it. I figure it’s still awfully early in the election process, but in the next few weeks I plan to have it fully fleshed out.”
    – Dave Nalle

    “I’ve seen figures similar to ones Dave quotes.”
    – Vox Populi

  • Clavos

    Still haven’t figured out what a non sequitur is, have you, MCH?

  • JR

    RJ Elliott: Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be a single “true” conservative running for the GOP’s nomination in 2008

    Maybe because that idiot you elected has given conservatives such a bad name… without actually being one!

  • Clavos

    Maybe because that idiot you elected has given conservatives such a bad name… without actually being one!

    Good point, JR. Sad, isn’t it?

  • Arch Conservative

    Maybe because that idiot you elected has given conservatives such a bad name… without actually being one!”

    Hmmm if people actually realize that he isn’t a conservative then why would they believe he is giving conservatives a bad name?

    If there is an absence of true conservatives running in the GOP it is not because the GOP believes true conservatism is something to be ashamed of but rather it’s because there are no true conservatives that are capable of winning.

    Now you might be able to make the argument that even though Bush is not a conservative he was elected by conservatives and this has given conservatives a bad name because of his shoddy leadership.

    Dave…how exactly are social conservatives anti-American? Are they anti-American because they seek to have their views advanced beyond those of others? If so then you might as well call all Americans of all political stripes anti-American as it’s not just social conservatives who try to fashion American society in accordance with their own views.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Arch, anyone who tries to impose a set of values on America which are different from and contrary to those on which the nation was founded is un-american, whether they’re communists or christians.

    dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “anyone who tries to impose a set of values on America which are different from and contrary to those on which the nation was founded is un-american”

    Sounds like both major political parties right about now… :-/

  • MCH

    “Still haven’t figured out what a non sequitur is, have you, MCH?”
    – Clavvy

    And I’m still waiting to hear your views on Vox Populi’s fraud and deceit…

  • Clavos

    MCH,

    I frequently get the same kind of question from my wife,

    “Does this dress make me look fat?”

    I don’t answer her, either.

  • MCH

    Clavvy;

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Sounds like both major political parties right about now… :-/

    Got it in one, RJ.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Heh. LOL. Good one, MCH!!

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Rudy Giuliani is the much better candidate for libertarian-minded voters for 2008. Ron Paul doesn’t understand the threat that the country faces from Islamo-Fascism. He thinks that if we just surrender to the Islamo-Fascists that they will go away and leave us alone.

    If we surrender to the Islamo-Fascists, they will be on our border lobbing scud missles at Brownsville, El Paso, Tucson, and San Diego faster than you can say “Allah AhuAhkbar.”

    Giuliani understands the threat from Islamo-Fascism and will fight a real War on Terror, not some politically correct, soft-bellied War like Bush is fighting.

    Plus, Rudy is a Tax Cutter, a Privatizer, and Tolerant on social matters.

    Libertarians nationwide are rally behind Rudy. Just today we learn that a bunch of Top libertarian and conservative California Congressman and Legislators are endorsing Giuliani.

    Libertarians for Giuliani at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
    1997 – 2003

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    The mindless sickening nature of comments on this thread has literally brought a tear to my eye.

%d bloggers like this: