| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| 'Mean Mr. Giuliani' Would Bring Toughness to Washington |
| 2007-02-21 |
| by Deroy Murdock In Wednesday’s National Review Online, Evans & Novak reporter David Freddoso hammers former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as a man with a mean streak. Freddoso’s piece recalls some of Giuliani’s more colorful moments in office including his once saying, “If you tell me off, I tell you off -- that’s my personality.” Freddoso repeats the often-stated myth that Giuliani was hated by the end of his term, until the September 11 terrorist attack rehabilitated his supposedly tattered reputation and rocketed him to global fame and acclaim. On the contrary, a key survey showed that New Yorkers regarded Giuliani very highly less than a month before al-Qaeda agents demolished the Twin Towers. An August 5-12, 2001 poll by the New York Times -- perhaps Giuliani’s most bitter critic during his eight-year administration -- showed that among 1,353 New Yorkers surveyed, Giuliani was very popular and widely credited for having rescued Gotham from the flames in which he found it in 1994. As Adam Nagourney and Marjorie Connelly reported that August 15: Only 25 percent said they believed that the city would become a worse place to live in the next 10 to 15 years, the lowest percentage since The Times first asked the question 28 years ago. Eight years ago, before Mr. Giuliani was elected, half of city residents were pessimistic about the long-term course of the city. And 4 in 10 said Mr. Giuliani's policies had a lot to do with the improvements. Overall, 55 percent said they approved of the job he was doing, compared with 30 percent who disapproved. So, the man who the conventional wisdom still says would have vanished into a rain of rotten tomatoes had September 11 not occurred, in fact, enjoyed a 55 percent approval rating one month before al-Qaeda struck. Naturally, The West 43rd Street Gazette entombed news of Giuliani’s popularity in paragraph 30 of Nagourney and Connelley’s story -- the very last paragraph. Freddoso does concede that, “Maybe a hard, mean man was what New York City needed after decades of feel-good, politically correct thinking had made the place unlivable and nearly ungovernable.” This is one reason why Giuliani is exactly the presidential candidate around whom conservatives and libertarians immediately should coalesce. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #16 If Rudy can get his ex-wife to stump for him, old personal issues go bye bye. Hey, crazier things have happened and we are talking about world class politics here. |
| Posted by: GORT 2007-02-21 22:16 |
| #15 I think Rudy has the best chance. I sent an email to his exploritory whatever today volunteering my time. Once he announces I will make a donation. Its my sincerest hope that the donks get beat again. The reaction from the donks upon losing is going to be priceless. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-02-21 19:58 |
| #14 It's Rudy. Newt and Romney aren't in the running. The only other guy in the game is McCain. Steve White's right. Until Republicans realize they should back a winner instead of carping about issues that aren't really on the table, like abortion and guns, we will continue to lose to Democrats who will ruthlessly persue those very issues and more. If we don't, then we deserve to lose. And lose we will. |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2007-02-21 18:38 |
| #13 In case you missed it, http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/02/giuliani_on_hannity_colmes_vid_1.html I don't think he would do anything crazy on guns or abortion. He would probably focus on what needs the focus during war. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-02-21 18:28 |
| #12 Rudy seems to me to be the clear choice at this point. He has a track record of bringing order and sanity where chaos reigned. He told the Saudis to take their money and stick it where the sun don't shine. He will fight with Congress when neeed be, he will continue to build up the military and will protect this country. My principal worry is about what he will or won't do on immigration/southern border. I am not concerned about gun control. He won't go there. Abortion is also something that is just not going to be changed in the country any time soon. He would not be the engine for change one way or the other. I love Newt, but he is not electable. He could be a great Sec State though. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-02-21 18:06 |
| #11 Mac - you is entitled to your opinion, of course. What you're saying is that if it's between Rudy and Hillary, you're not gonna vote? That's a vote for Hillary, by default. I think Steve White is correct - Rudy can't take the guns away if he's elected. If the Dems divide the country again, and get more liberals in office, Hillary just might try to take the guns..... It's always the lesser of two evils. It's not a privilege to vote, it's a responsiblity! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-02-21 17:57 |
| #10 As a strong Giuliani supporter, it's good to hear so many Republicans saying that they will support him if he gets the nomination. Likewise, even though I tend to the moderate side of the Republican party on some social issues, I would probably vote for anyone the Republicans nominate over any conceivable Democratic candidate. As an Arizonan, I would love to be part of an upset primary victory for Giuliani over McCain here. I think that would give him tremendous momentum and would make a big splash in the press. It would even be better if he were to pick Kyl as his VP candidate. Imagine the smoke pouring out of McCain's ears if that were to happen! It might even make it easier for some social conservatives if and when they have to plug their noses and vote for him. Assuming Rudy actually wins the presidency, I don't think it would be harmful to the conservative position on the important social issues. If his judicial nominees are philosophically similar to Roberts and Alito, as he has said they would be, the main result of his presidency on social issues would be to continue the rightward momentum of the Bush years. If he is strong on war on Islamic fascism and is able to make some bureaucratic reforms within the federal government (his ability to stand up to tough bureaucratic fights in NYC is legendary) and appoints good judges, conservatives could end up considering him to be as good as Reagan. Well, almost as good maybe. ;-) Although I admire much that Bush has been able to accomplish, he has not done enough to take control of the federal bureaucracy, from the CIA to the State Department, and keep them from undermining his policies. I think Giuliani could make substatial gains in this area - not a moment too soon - while not losing ground on other issues, including gun control, abortion, marriage. And a Republican president would have to take his party's reaction on these matters seriously, whereas a Democratic president, elected because too many conservatives voted third party or not at all, would not. If Giuliani gets the nomination, I hope social conservatives will show up at the polls and do the right thing. And then I hope they keep making their voices heard after he is in office. That's what I intend to do if one of the others gets the nomination. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2007-02-21 17:05 |
| #9 I'm not voting for any gun-grabber. Period. Giuliani will change on this issue or he won't get my vote. The Repubs already don't get my money since they refuse to take a stand against illegal immigration. The way 2008 is shaping up, it's definitely going to be a choice about picking the lesser of two very bad evils. |
| Posted by: mac 2007-02-21 16:57 |
| #8 He's my first choice right now. The article gets it right: Rudy is Reaganite where it counts. Yup, Steve.... That's my take on it too... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2007-02-21 15:49 |
| #7 What I ment was I'll vote for Guiliani over the others in the Primary. I'll vote Repiblican in the General election even if they nominate a goat. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-02-21 14:06 |
| #6 Of the top 4 Republican runners right now, McCain, Romney, Gingrinch, and Giuliani, for me it's a tough choice. I'd have to vote Giuliani. I think this time around, Repubs better vote for whomever gets the nomination. No matter what. |
| Posted by: Chiper Threreger8956 2007-02-21 13:39 |
| #5 Of the top 4 Republican runners right now, McCain, Romney, Gingrinch, and Giuliani, for me it's a tough choice. I'd have to vote Giuliani. And isn't it odd that the only one of the four who hasn't had multiple wives is the Morman, Romney? |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-02-21 12:08 |
| #4 He's my first choice right now. The article gets it right: Rudy is Reaganite where it counts. We aren't likely to solve the abortion issue in the next, oh, fifty years, so I'm willing to let that one lie for a while. And the firearms issue is moot: we have a functioning 2nd Amendment, we have courts upholding it, and we have a hundred million-odd armed Americans who'll make sure it's enforced. The 2nd ain't disappearing. Rudy is a smart, tough guy who gets it on national security. The biggest problem for him is his messed up personal life. If Rudy gets anywhere close to the nomination you can expect the Clintonistas to find ways of bringing that out. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-02-21 11:23 |
| #3 Until you folks get your priorities straight - THE WAR - the Democrats are going to keep winning by default. If I can hold my nose and vote for a socon with the right thinking on the war you should do the same. A jihadi victory means no Supreme Court and no 2nd Amendment. Though if you are prepared to convert to "islam" I guess you will find people who agree with you on abortion and as one of the Umma you will be able to your firearms too. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-02-21 11:06 |
| #2 He's not My first choice, either (or second), badenov, but... Versus any of the 394 Demonrats running... |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-02-21 09:26 |
| #1 Giuliani may be a tough guy, but he fails in two critical areas: abortion and firearms. He would be a terrible choice for a presidential candidate. Newt in '08! |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-02-21 06:29 |