PDA

View Full Version : Rudy Giuliani


Roguish Lawyer
03-05-2005, 13:02
So Catwoman and I heard him speak last night at a big corporate lawyers' dinner here in LA. (Got our pictures taken with him too.)

I'll tell you, I was really impressed. He's a really entertaining speaker. Funny, personable, a great political candidate in that regard. Spoke about leadership and what he learned during the aftermath of 9/11. I wish I had something to take notes with, because I thought he made some excellent points about leadership. The first one was that you have to have a set of beliefs to be a good leader. Ronald Reagan was his example in this regard. He had 5 other points, which I think may be in a book he wrote. But anyway, I thought it was a great speech. I think he will be capable of breaking down the blue-state resistance to what we need to do in this war. The question is whether his moderation on various issues will eliminate red-state support.

He said during the brief Q&A session following the speech that he has not decided whether he will run for POTUS in 2008. But the way he answered the question made it pretty clear to me that he is thinking about it.

I think he'd be an excellent candidate if the campaign is run the right way. Rematch of the aborted race against Hillary, but on a bigger battlefield.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Got a signed Reggie Bush jersey with Orange Bowl patch at the silent auction. :lifter :D

The Reaper
03-05-2005, 13:08
What do you guys think?

P.S. Got a signed Reggie Bush jersey with Orange Bowl patch at the silent auction. :lifter :D

Who is Reggie Bush?

I think that Rudy is a great guy, probably an outstanding leader up to Gubernatorial level, but is a RINO who I would not bother to vote for as a Presidential candidate.

Pro-too many wrong things, and anti-too many right issues.

Just my .02.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-05-2005, 13:12
Who is Reggie Bush?

This is Reggie Bush, aka "The President."

The Reaper
03-05-2005, 13:20
This is Reggie Bush, aka "The President."

I thought that the President was George W. Bush, and you had mentioned the possibility of Rudy running in the future?

That guy doesn't look like either one of them.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-10-2005, 10:13
I think that Rudy is a great guy, probably an outstanding leader up to Gubernatorial level, but is a RINO who I would not bother to vote for as a Presidential candidate.

Pro-too many wrong things, and anti-too many right issues.

So if we have Rudy v. Hillary, you'd stay home?

brownapple
03-11-2005, 05:22
I'd vote for Rudy in a heartbeat.

Most of what he is known as "for" and "against" that get him labeled a "RHINO" are specifically related to New York City, and easily dealt with by simply saying that they are State or local issues (and most of them are). A few are not, but I can live with them.

The Reaper
03-11-2005, 12:35
So if we have Rudy v. Hillary, you'd stay home?

Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 12:59
Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

I did not think you were a single-issue voter. Hmmm.

The Reaper
03-11-2005, 13:16
I did not think you were a single-issue voter. Hmmm.

That, and National Defense are very high on my list.

If both parties have the same planks, I will go vote Libertarian, or another third party. And stock up on hardware and ammo.

TR

Trip_Wire (RIP)
03-11-2005, 13:19
Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

I like Rudy and always thought he did a good job as mayor of NY. He is; however, a product of the NY state of mind on firearms.

I would NOT vote for anybody that was anti-Second Amendment!

Hillary, is a joke! If they were the only choice I wouild indeed have to stay home!
:mad:

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 15:20
I voted libertarian when Bush Sr. ran against Clinton for reasons similar to those you have identified. I am not so sure that was the right choice in hindsight.

The Reaper
03-11-2005, 15:38
Hopefully, Rudy will change his mind, the platform will address it, or he will not be the nominee.

You think either side can afford to lose 3,000,000 votes in some very close states?

TR

Airbornelawyer
03-11-2005, 16:01
That, and National Defense are very high on my list.

If both parties have the same planks, I will go vote Libertarian, or another third party. And stock up on hardware and ammo.

TRHence the problem with single-issue voting. No party, except perhaps the TR Party, will ever mirror your platform entirely in its. If you favor one party because its view on one issue, say gun control/Second Amendment rights, mirrors yours, you may find that its view on another issue may be far afield. Unless these national defense views also accord with yours: We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons. - National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military. - National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, GeorgiaWe call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine. - National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia; Previous versions also cited the Reagan Doctrine.End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above. - National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, GeorgiaThe important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. We favor a drastic reduction in cost and size of our total diplomatic establishment. - National Platform of the Libertarian Party, July 2, 2000 Certainly America’s defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the US now accounts for 37% of all the world’s military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the US. Russia, our former Cold War adversary, certainly represents no military threat. Our military budget is $260 billion; Russia’s is less than $80 billion. China spends less than $7 billion on defense. The most commonly cited rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba spend a combined $15 billion. Nowhere are American vital interests under attack or even seriously threatened. If the US were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years. - Libertarian Solutions; Michael Tanner on LP Web site, November 7, 2000 We oppose the incorporation of the Persian Gulf and the countries surrounding it into the U.S. defense perimeter. We oppose the creation of new U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in the Middle East region. We condemn the stationing of American military troops in the Sinai peninsula as a trip-wire that could easily set off a new world war. - 1990 National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, September 1989, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Libertarian Party National Committee unconditionally supports his right to resist, and will continue to support his struggle against the state in whatever form it takes consistent with libertarian values; and
That the Libertarian Party National Committee supports the right of all draft eligible youth to resist registration and the draft. - Resolutions of the Libertarian National Committee, August 30, 1981
And in case you thought you 7th Group guys were actually up to anything good...
We oppose the current thrust by the U.S government to establish American political control over the Western Hemisphere and its growing involvement in internal conflicts in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specifically, we oppose the continuing U.S. campaigns to overthrow the government of Nicaragua; to intervene in the internal politics of Panama to overthrow its ruler; to fight "drug wars" in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and Columbia; and to prop up the government of El Salvador by sending in military personnel and foreign aid. - 1990 National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, September 1989, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 16:14
Oooooh, that was good, Dave. :D

Airbornelawyer
03-11-2005, 16:14
But at least they avoid that hobgoblin of foolish consistency.

In 1972: "We should have a sufficient nuclear capacity to convince any potential aggressor that it cannot hope to survive a first strike against the United States. But, as our foreign commitments are reduced, and as our allies assume their share of the burden of providing a conventional war capability, we should be able to reduce the size of our conventional defense, and thus reduce the overall cost and size of our total defense establishment. "

In 1996: "The potential use of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to all the peoples of the world, not only Americans. Thus, the objective should be to reduce the risk that a nuclear war might begin and its scope if it does. We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security."

This latter position, that nuclear weapons constitute the greatest threat, which is also reflected in the 1990, 1992 and 1994 platforms, remains the LP's current stance. Terrrorism is only obliquely mentioned in the 2004 platform, conventional threats to the US are dismissed as non-existent, and human rights justifications for military intervention are completely ruled out.

Gun control advocates claim that while you may have the right to self-defense, we are going to deny you the means. The Libertarian Party claims the US has the right to defend itself, but had its policy of gutting conventional forces in favor of nukes in the 1970s been followed by its policy of gutting nuclear forces in the 1990s, the US wouldn't have much left in the way of means.

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 16:17
So, Mr. Nitpicker, what are your views on this potential GOP candidate from your home state? :munchin

Airbornelawyer
03-11-2005, 16:26
So, Mr. Nitpicker, what are your views on this potential GOP candidate from your home state? :munchin
There's a potential GOP candidate from my home state? Jeb Bush is governor, but I'm not sure I consider him as being "from" Florida. But for the whole "dynasty" thing, though, I would consider him a strong candidate.

Until coming here as a summer associate in 2000, my only connection to New York was that my great-great-grandfather is buried in the Confederate cemetery at the POW camp at Elmira, NY, the Yankee's Andersonville.

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 16:29
There's a potential GOP candidate from my home state? Jeb Bush is governor, but I'm not sure I consider him as being "from" Florida. But for the whole "dynasty" thing, though, I would consider him a strong candidate.

Until coming here as a summer associate in 2000, my only connection to New York was that my great-great-grandfather is buried in the Confederate cemetery at the POW camp at Elmira, NY, the Yankee's Andersonville.

Nit, nit, nit! OK, your current state of residence. :rolleyes: :munchin

Airbornelawyer
03-11-2005, 16:52
... but since you asked.

In terms of the politics of it all: Guiliani is perhaps the strongest candidate in the GOP field. There are others to whom I am far closer ideologically, but for whom electability is an issue. Guiliani, despite his lisp, is considered a dynamic public speaker, and has impressed crowds large and small around the country, as you note yourself.

In terms of issues: I expect I disagree with Guiliani on a litany of social issues, such as abortion. He is on most social issues definitely on the liberal/moderate side of the Republican Party. He is not a RINO, however, like Mayor Bloomberg, but simply closer to the establishment wing of the GOP represented by the Tafts and GHW Bush, rather than the movement conservative wing represented by Goldwater and Reagan (though note that many movement conservatives found disagreement with both of these icons on social issues such as gay rights).

But on the issues which for a national level political figure matter most to me, there is general accord. These are national security, law enforcement and economic policy. Guiliani favors aggressive defense of US interests and is well-known (indeed infamous in liberal circles) for his strong law enforcement views. On economics, as mayor he created a pro-business policy, was a fiscal conservative, cut taxes and cut bloated city government. Aggressive crime fighting, based on the broken-windows theory, also reduced crime and raised the quality of life, which contributed to economic revitalization as people became more comfortable in visiting and investing in areas previously avoided.

Even on social issues, he showed a conservative streak and a proper attitude toward the First Amendment which earned him liberal enmity. This was his vocal opposition to government subsidies for offensive art, and his defense of such views against leftists who think denying a subsidy is somehow the same as censorship.

His education policies favored weakening the public school bureaucracies, favoring school choice and enforcing standards. He was pushing school vouchers along with then-Governor Bush in the late 1990s.

I suspect, as Trip_Wire notes, that Guiliani's gun views are the result of being a product of big city law enforcement. I suspect they have changed, though, in the past few years and would even further if he runs for office. A cynic might say he's just bowing to political pressure from conservatives, though (a) this is not unprecedented - think of GHW Bush and abortion when he became Reagan's running mate, and (b) what is wrong with a politician listening to his would-be supporters? A less cynical person might credit him with a real conversion, i.e., now that he is travelling the entire US and meeting a more diverse slice of America than you get on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, he may be freeing himself of that big city mindset.

Time will tell.

Peregrino
03-11-2005, 17:12
Ouch Counselor - that stung! :eek: It also shows why I continue to vote "the lesser of two evils" (as I like to refer to the Republican Party) vice the Lunatic Fringe when I go to the polls. :( Despite the attractiveness of the Libertarian's "bold print" rhetoric - you still have to read the fine print to see everything you're buying with your vote. Besides, whenever I think of voting for a third party's candidate all I have to remember is what Ross Perot did to the country with his "spoiler" campaign. :mad: I too have my "bellwether issues", principal among them being the Second Ammendment. I've found that any candidate conservative enough (sadly doesn't really exist) to support my position on the Second Ammendment, is probably in agreement with most of the other issues as well. The Republican party's platform is most likely to coincide with my views (read: be less objectionable in its major parts); unfortunately, that leaves me depending on the party apparatus to keep a recalcitrant candidate in line with the party's platform. Which brings us back to the thread. Rudy performed admirably as the RINO mayor of NYC, providing leadership when it was desperately needed (wait a minute - didn't GW do the same thing for the entire country?). But we need to remember what NYC is - a place noted for it's budget woes, encroaching (rampant) socialism, and its total antipathy for the Second Ammendment and anything resembling controls on big government or protections of individual freedoms. The most important questions of the next three and a half years are: Are these traits characteristic of the man or the result of an accomodation to his environment?, Can the Republican platform committee craft a platform acceptable to the more conservative elements without alienating the moderate majority of the American people?, and Can the Republican party keep Rudy within the bounds of the Republican platform? Just my .02 - Peregrino

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 17:41
TR:

You wouldn't prefer to have Rudy running the GWOT rather than Hillary? :munchin

The Reaper
03-11-2005, 18:01
TR:

You wouldn't prefer to have Rudy running the GWOT rather than Hillary? :munchin

Is there a difference? Would there be?

TR

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 18:05
Is there a difference? Would there be?

TR

That is not a serious question, is it? You have got to be kidding me.

The Reaper
03-11-2005, 18:33
That is not a serious question, is it? You have got to be kidding me.

Differentiate their stated positions, please.

Both supported the GWOT ops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hillary is becoming quite a hawk. Ask the SOWF.

TR

dennisw
03-11-2005, 19:08
with hilary its the wolf in sheep's clothing. As pointed out in Dereliction of Duty by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, hilary did not want anyone wearing a military uniform in the white house. I can't imagine anyone being a worst commander and chief. Made her daughter's drive lose his uniform. She may be trying to change her spots, but if she's elected you'll see the liberal leopard real quick.

I'm afraid Giuliani will get beat up on his personal life, the divorce etc. I think this is why he backed out of the NY senate race. Plus he's a yankee fan which is always troubling. lol

Roguish Lawyer
03-11-2005, 21:24
Hillary is becoming quite a hawk. Ask the SOWF.

TR

Yeah, do you believe her? I don't. I think she is a radical 60s leftist who is completely full of shit when she claims to be pro-military. It is entirely contrived.

12B4S
03-11-2005, 23:54
Yeah, do you believe her? I don't. I think she is a radical 60s leftist who is completely full of shit when she claims to be pro-military. It is entirely contrived.


Everything hitlery does is contrived. Everything you hear, see or read from now til '08 is her moving center. hell. worked for bubba. She'll work the same angle and it has already started. Dead on RL.

brownapple
03-12-2005, 07:24
Is there a difference? Would there be?

TR


Look at the responses of each of them to Chairman Arafat. Obviously there is a difference.

Airbornelawyer
03-14-2005, 10:34
The best argument that could be made in this regard applies to both characters. That is, whatever their personal views and inclinations on particular issues, the pressure of politics will pull them in a particular direction.

In Guiliani's case, while he may personally favor gun registration (and as noted above his views might have evolved - he is not on record on guns since 1999), the GOP as a whole, and powerful constituencies within the party do not. Similarly, many liberal and centrist Republicans who are either "pro-choice" or agnostic on the abortion debate have accepted that the GOP is generally a "pro-life" party. Some, such as G.H.W. Bush, had what amounts to a Damascene conversion on the issue (as he did on a number of other issues such as "voodoo economics" when he was selected as Reagan's running mate).

In Rodham Clinton's case, a similar dynamic appears at work. Just as politics have forced her to take positions more hawkish than she may be personally inclined, events may force her to act on those positions with more conviction than she truly may have. This occurred with her husband, who ran on "it's the economy, stupid" and then deployed troops worldwide in a variety of contingencies. Bill Clinton favored the multilateralist approach to foreign policy, but acted in places like Kosovo without the UN's sanction.

But G.H.W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's experiences also display the problem with this pull. While Bush dutifully acted as Reagan's vice president and ran for president on Reagan's legacy, he was not a movement conservative and still considered Reagan's economic policies to be so much voodoo. When an economic crisis loomed, his political instincts gave way to his personal beliefs, and "read my lips, no new taxes" gave way to a Keynesian budget deal. On foreign policy, while his Administration spoke the rhetoric of freedom found in the Reagan Doctrine, Bush surrounded himself with status quo "realists," such as Brent Scowcroft and Kissinger protege Larry Eagleburger. This led to the abandonment of the Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings in Iraq after Desert Storm and the so-called "Chicken Kiev" speech on the disintegration of the USSR, among other foreign policy low points.

Clinton, forced by events into a more aggressive foreign policy than he likely would have preferred, demonstrated a woeful lack of interest in seeing things through. Terrorist attacks and violations of UN sanctions on Iraq received dilatory responses - launch a few dozen cruise missiles and get through the media cycle. Somalia was abandoned, making the sacrifices there worthless. Clinton's hawkish rhetoric in the 1991-92 campaign about the Balkans and China was shown to be just that - rhetoric.

Trip_Wire (RIP)
03-14-2005, 12:36
Yeah, do you believe her? I don't. I think she is a radical 60s leftist who is completely full of shit when she claims to be pro-military. It is entirely contrived.

Only a fool would believe anything this person had to say! I agree with you 100% on your statement on this RL!
:munchin