[tomder55]

His recent column in Reason magazine details some of his accomplishments as Mayor of NYC .

Reason Foundation: Innovators in Action 2007 - Mayor Rudolph Giuliani - Management Requires Measurement: The Key to New York City's Renaissance


The country largely knows him for his managing of the 9-11 crisis in the city . He goes beyond that and demonstrates that NYC was well managed while he was Mayor (and that is no easy task) .

The issue of competent management will most likely be a key issue in next year's race . The only other candidates in the Republican field who can claim this issue favorably would be Mitt Romney in the business world ,and perhaps Mike Huckabee . But Rudy's claim to adherence to conservative fiscal philosophy is his strength over the others .

Rudy is beginning to separate himself from the pack ,and it looks like the Fred Thompson challenge is unfortunately fizzling before it begins.

But if private life issues comes into play this election cycle Rudy is in for some rough sailing .

Rudy Giuliani, Nasty Man — Even to His Kids - New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer

[ETWolverine]

...it looks like the Fred Thompson challenge is unfortunately fizzling before it begins.

I'm not quite sure why you make this statement. I really wish that Thompson would announce already, but I have no reason to believe that interest in him as a candidate has faltered to any great degree. Have I missed some big news?

Elliot

[tomder55]

I hope I'm wrong .My support will go to the candidate I think can best beat Hillary.

RCP average shows a slight decline in Thompson's polling with Rudy and Romney rising and McCain plummeting .

There is a perception that Thompson does not put out the effort. I do not know if it is fair or not ;but it didn't help when he was cruising the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart looking old and frail. He should've been up greeting , pumping the hand of everyone and showing enthusiasm for what he was doing.

But I said that comment primarily because his campaign appears to be disorganized.


Reports say that his grass roots internet fund raising is not getting it done and he is falling behind the other candidates . This primary season is weird this year and I do not think there is time to build momentum. You have to go into the primaries with the momentum already.

Bob Novak reported that when he eventually announces it is essential that he come over as dynamic in his debate debut. The problem is that no one knows when his first debate will be . He was supposed to attend the Sept. 5 one at the U.of NH but now he may postpone until the Sept. 27 debate at Morgan State U. in Baltimore . Whichever one it is he had better knock them out or he will not get the funding needed.


Yesterday the Politico reported about another defection from his campaign.

Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com

This is not the 1st high level defection. But on the positive side ,Howard Baker and Mary Matlin are presumably still in his camp... and who knows which wagon Karl Rove will hitch up with?

[speechlesstx]

Tom, at this stage I'm still betting Rudy will be the nominee and I have no problem with that. I think he has the best chance of beating Hillary, even though I'm still intrigued by Thompson.

You know the speculation seems is that Rove will hitch up with Thompson, but I'm not so sure that's a good thing for anyone's campaign right now. I'm sure the left and the media will immediately and relentlessly crucify any candidate that takes him on. But then again I don't know how that would be any different the way they'll treat any other GOP candidate. As you've noticed they're not too kind to Giuliani.

Did you read the Village Voice article linked from the "Nasty Man" column?

On the stump in Iowa, he said he wants "to give the maximum degree of privacy" to his children. "If you want the press to leave the children alone," Giuliani said, "the best way to do it is not to comment." What he meant was that if a candidate wants the press to ignore his messy personal life—including facts that might shock even the 50 percent of Americans who are divorced—the way to do it is to label any examination of it an "out-of-bounds" intrusion. And if using the vulnerability of his children will help insulate him from examination, this father is ready to show that he really does know best, especially when it comes to protecting himself.

That’s why he’s said: “Judge me by my public performance—whatever mistakes I’ve made in my personal life, I’m sorry for them.” It’s a laughable dichotomy, as if one’s personal and professional lives are wholly separable, as if blowing up an 18-year marriage rather than finding a way to end it reasonably says nothing about how a presidential prospect might handle a squabble with Congress. New Yorkers, of course, know that Rudy’s self-absorbed humiliation of his wife Donna Hanover—informing her that he wanted a divorce on television, inviting the press to a “walking my baby back home” stroll over Mother’s Day weekend with newly announced girlfriend Judi Nathan—was utterly consistent with the in-your-face way he governed. His lawyer and friend Raoul Felder called Donna an “uncaring mother” over that Mother’s Day weekend in 2000, said she was “howling like a stuck pig,” and accused her of “clinging to the chandeliers” in Gracie Mansion. For those used to the tone that Giuliani applied to enemies large and small at City Hall, it was clear that Felder was merely a bullhorn for his client.

Why are the following samples from the Caroline grievance list irrelevant to the character test we apply to our presidential candidates?

And I thought their private lives were nobody's business. Does this mean we now have the go ahead to apply character tests to Democrats? :D

[tomder55]

Rudy is vulnerable and they will continue to pound away on his personal life.

Republican Giuliani: Leave my family alone | Politics | Reuters

The Clinton's get a pass even from Republicans. One of them (I forget who ) praised the Clintoons for at least staying together and raising Chelsea. Other Republicans like McCain and Gingrich praise her competence in public forums.

You would never see a Democrat doing the reciprocal .

[speechlesstx]

Rudy is vulnerable and they will continue to pound away on his personal life.

No doubt. He seems to be handling it well, though.

Giuliani's remarks came in response to a question at the town hall meeting by a woman who asked how he could "expect the loyal following of Americans when you are not getting it within your own family."

His answer received applause from the audience of about 200 people.

"Whatever the issues of my private life, it obviously doesn't affect my public performance. I functioned very effectively as mayor of New York City, to such an extent that I had results that nobody else ever had," he said. "I would ask people to look at it that way. I think we have a much more honest kind of analysis of what we need in public office if we did it that way."

I've touched on this before, but what I fear may happen is the religious right is going to go into anti-Giuliani convulsions instead of getting behind what may be the best chance to keep Hillary out. I hope I'm wrong.

[tomder55]

The base better get used to the idea that their perfect candidate isn't there . Perhaps when all is said and done competence will be the deciding issue rather than basal concerns .

[GoldieMae]

I've touched on this before, but what I fear may happen is the religious right is going to go into anti-Giuliani convulsions instead of getting behind what may be the best chance to keep Hillary out. I hope I'm wrong.

In this case, I think you are wrong, at least partly enough to allow Giuliani to still carry an election. The religious wing of the Republican party is still very strong, but their distaste for the Democratic hopefuls outweighs their distaste for Guiliani's "indiscretions." They may hold their noses, but they will pull the lever. For the relisious wing of the Party, it will be a vote against the Dems as much as a vote for Rudy.

[BABRAM]

Good suppositions. I wonder if Christian Republicans would risk being known as hypocrites for supporting Rudy? Giuliani has stated he is Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights.



Bobby

[tomder55]

As noted... Rudy is riding on the platform of competence ;basic conservative fiscal principles ,and tough as nails foreign policy especially regarding the "war on us" by jihadistan.

Where he separates from the base on specific social issues he argues that he will appoint judges in the Roberts and Scalia mold and that the executive really doesn't have much more influence than that anyway. He may have a point.

[GoldieMae]

Good suppositions. I wonder if Christian Republicans would risk being known as hypocrites for supporting Rudy?! Giuliani has stated he is Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights.



Bobby

Curious. Technically, voting for a candidate with whom you do not entirely agree is not hypocritical. They're not asking RG to pastor their churches or to perform gay marriages or abortions. They are doing what the rest of us do, picking the best candidate out of the choices in the running. Hypocrisy is pretending to have qualities or beliefs one does not really have. The religious Republicans who believe as they believe are not giving up their beliefs by voting for a candidate with whom they partially disagree. Christian Republicans who are pro-life or against gay marriage still have those beliefs even if they do not completely agree with a candidate. It is kind of a misrepresentation to infer that Christians don't support "gay rights". Christians do not want gays to lose any of their constitutional rights, there's just a disagreement as to whether the Constitution provides for the right of a person to marry a member of the same sex; there's a big difference between inferring Christians don't support "gay rights" and Christians don't support "gay marriage". The more correct terminology with respect to RG's position is:

Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not -- and has never -- supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That's why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Giuliani: N.H. civil unions law 'goes too far' - On Politics - USATODAY.com

[speechlesstx]

In this case, I think you are wrong, at least partly enough to allow Guiliani to still carry an election. The religious wing of the Republican party is still very strong, but their distaste for the Democratic hopefuls outweighs their distaste for Guiliani's "indiscretions." They may hold their noses, but they will pull the lever. For the relisious wing of the Party, it will be a vote against the Dems as much as a vote for Rudy.

Trust me, I know these people, I used to be one of them (and some here still think I am). I can guarantee there will be a huge push in these circles to avoid Rudy and get behind Huckabee or Brownback. What remains to be seen is what you say, whether they hold their noses and vote - or if they just stay home.

Like I said I hope I'm wrong - and I hope you're right. I would think the 2006 election would have made an impression on them, but to use a good ol' King James term they can relate to, they are a very "stiff necked" group of people.

[speechlesstx]

Good suppositions. I wonder if Christian Republicans would risk being known as hypocrites for supporting Rudy?! Giuliani has stated he is Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights.

It was only a matter of time until that came up. I don't see it as hypocritical to prevent someone representing a party and an ideology that is increasingly hostile to Christians, Christianity and Christian values from being elected leader of the free world. :cool:

[BABRAM]

It was only a matter of time until that came up. I don't see it as hypocritical to prevent someone representing a party and an ideology that is increasingly hostile to Christians, Christianity and Christian values from being elected leader of the free world. :cool:

If the lines between the parties are blurred and you have your values compromised, then what difference would it make? In that respect... nothing. The Democratic party has never declared that you are not permitted religious worship of choice. It's a party perhaps more diverse than Republicans. You didn't answer the question. Would Christian Republicans risk being known as hypocrites for supporting Rudy? Giuliani has stated he is Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights.


If there are any conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past elections that are willing to answer, please be my guest.



Bobby

[speechlesstx]

As noted ... Rudy is riding on the platform of competence ;basic conservative fiscal principles ,and tough as nails foreign policy especially regarding the "war on us" by jihadistan.

Where he seperates from the base on specific social issues he argues that he will appoint judges in the Roberts and Scalia mold and that the executive really doesn't have much more influence than that anyway. He may have a point.

I don't really believe that base is going to risk another 2006 type outcome, but my 'fear' is worth mentioning so hopefully some of these folks wake up and realize - as you said - that they aren't going to find their perfect candidate. After the Dems sneaked in last year, made a showing of unity to the point of even having Pelosi and Reid lay low for awhile, and considering all the talk this year of the GOP being in disarray, we need everyone to come together on this election.

[Choux]

I thought it was interesting that Rudy said he spent just as much time at Ground Zero as the firemen and policemen... a review of his records showed Giuliani only spent 29 hours(more or less) there when the galliant rescuers did that in a COUPLE OF DAYS out of weeks.

They hate Giuliani.

Giuliani still has the "wierdness factor" his operatives are trying to overcome -- he just can't seem to overcome.

The outrageous FLIP FLOP factor that is truly laughable! AND UNSELLABLE.

[tomder55]

Yes

While making tough decisions about NYC Rudy did actually manage to step on some toes. He also didn't stroke the egos of the usual suspects either .

Now Rudy did put his foot in his mouth and misspoke when he said he spent more time there than the firefighters and he has since retracted the comments.

Giuliani: I Misspoke About Ground Zero

However I am sure he spent more time there than his leading critic in the union, Harold Schaitberger ,head of the International Association of Fire Fighters ;a man who has made it clear that the union would endorse a Democrat for President .

I have no doubt that they will continue their attacks throughout the campaign. But since it is in support of the Democrats these 'Swift Boat' type adds will be perfectly acceptable ;and I'm also sure the MSM will jump on that bandwagon also as you have already demonstrated with the faulty NY Slimes hit piece . Even the Slimes wrote "A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. " The Slimes account in other words does not take into account the first six days following the attack, during which Giuliani paid repeated visits to the site.


Rudy is a big boy. He can defend his record very well.

[speechlesstx]

If the lines between the parties are blurred and you have your values compromised, then what difference would it make? In that respect... nothing.

I don't recall a time when the lines between the parties haven't been blurred to some degree. As tom said, we aren't going to find our perfect candidate, so one must weigh the choices we do have with the current circumstances and make a choice. Or we can do nothing, which is far worse in my opinion.

The Democratic party has never declared that you are not permitted religious worship of choice. It's a party perhaps more diverse than Republicans.

I don't recall the Democratic party ever declaring such a thing so I agree with that much. But, I don't think anyone can argue they are the more liberal party, support and nominate more liberal judges (the 9th circuit comes to mind), are more secular and are the party of "speech codes" and "sensitivity", etc.which are repeatedly applied unequally toward Christians and conservatives in general. It's not as much the Democratic party itself as it is the liberal ideology found in its members that is openly hostile to Christianity. Democratic officeholders know they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on but that doesn't prevent their minions in the judiciary, at colleges and universities, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Hollywood from displaying that hostility on their behalf. I really shouldn't have to document this, but plenty of examples can be found here, here, here and here.

You didn't answer the question. Would Christian Republicans risk being known as hypocrites for supporting Rudy? Giuliani has stated he is Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights.

I did answer the question, I don't see it as hypocritical. This is where people like to box Christians in. We're expected to both separate our faith from our politics and acknowledge our hypocrisy for doing so. Which would you prefer? Both?

That radical left I was speaking of earlier mistakenly thinks we have our eyes set on forcing our faith on everyone else and establishing the dreaded Christian theocracy. The truth on both sides falls somewhere in between wouldn't you say?

Other than a few wackos the religious right loves our constitution the way it is, and realizes that if YOU don't have the right to worship as you choose - or not - then neither do we. Nobody leaves their beliefs out of their politics, but Christians do (or should) be able to distinguish between their political leadership and their religious leadership. I am voting for someone I believe will best pay the bills, establish and enforce necessary laws, protect the country, defend the constitution and protect our rights. I'm not voting on a pastor, but I'm not leaving my values at the door either.

[BABRAM]

I don't recall a time when the lines between the parties haven't been blurred to some degree. As tom said, we aren't going to find our perfect candidate, so one must weigh the choices we do have with the current circumstances and make a choice. Or we can do nothing, which is far worse in my opinion.



I don't recall the Democratic party ever declaring such a thing so I agree with that much. But, I don't think anyone can argue they are the more liberal party, support and nominate more liberal judges (the 9th circuit comes to mind), are more secular and are the party of "speech codes" and "sensitivity", etc.which are repeatedly applied unequally toward Christians and conservatives in general. It's not as much the Democratic party itself as it is the liberal ideology found in its members that is openly hostile to Christianity. Democratic officeholders know they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on but that doesn't prevent their minions in the judiciary, at colleges and universities, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and Hollywood from displaying that hostility on their behalf. I really shouldn't have to document this, but plenty of examples can be found here, here, here and here.



I did answer the question, I don't see it as hypocritical. This is where people like to box Christians in. We're expected to both separate our faith from our politics and acknowledge our hypocrisy for doing so. Which would you prefer? Both?

That radical left I was speaking of earlier mistakenly thinks we have our eyes set on forcing our faith on everyone else and establishing the dreaded Christian theocracy. The truth on both sides falls somewhere in between wouldn't you say?

Other than a few wackos the religious right loves our constitution the way it is, and realizes that if YOU don't have the right to worship as you choose - or not - then neither do we. Nobody leaves their beliefs out of their politics, but Christians do (or should) be able to distinguish between their political leadership and their religious leadership. I am voting for someone I believe will best pay the bills, establish and enforce necessary laws, protect the country, defend the constitution and protect our rights. I'm not voting on a pastor, but I'm not leaving my values at the door either.

Thanks. I think what we are going to find out is that the whole Republican party as one will shift more toward the left and/or the Conservative Christians Republicans will go their separate ways, perhaps another independent party movement. They can't stand united with Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights candidates and not be called on it and lose face. It was the conservative Christian fundamentalists that chose to involve themselves on the political front in the first place. Remember they wanted a voice and to be heard from. If they choose another direction otherwise, after all they have espoused the last few elections, then I can't see them no other way, but hypocritical. And I think most will agree. We will have to wait on which course of action they decide, if Rudy even gets the nomination. Which may end up being a moot point.





Bobby

[speechlesstx]

Thanks. I think what we are going to find out is that the whole Republican party as one will shift more toward the left and/or the Conservative Christians Republicans will go their separate ways, perhaps another independent party movement.

That is a possibility.

They can't stand united with Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay rights candidates and not be called on it and lose face. It was the conservative Christian fundamentalists that chose to involve themselves on the political front in the first place. Remember they wanted a voice and to be heard from. If they choose another direction otherwise, after all they have espoused the last few elections, then I can't see them no other way, but hypocritical. And I think most will agree. We will have to wait on which course of action they decide, if Rudy even gets the nomination. Which may end up being a moot point.

Interesting that you would frame it as "they wanted a voice and to be heard from." Should we not have a voice and have our voice heard? Absolutely we should, we have as much right to have our voice in politics as anyone else. But you seem to have the notion that "having a voice" means we can only support candidates that toe that fundamental evangelical line. That's never been the case Bobby, circumstances have never been perfect enough for us to do that. We've had to make choices from what was available all along. Do you think we all just sat out once the Alan Keyes' and Ralph Reed's ran their course? Do you think we all supported Pat Robertson for president? I didn't vote for any one of those guys and I probably couldn't pinpoint anyone I know that did. We do the best we can with what's available.

I'll give you this much, it will be interesting to see the reaction from Dobson and Robertson if Rudy is the nominee. But here's a hint, the masses have never given blind loyalty to any of those guys (in fact a large number of us still cringe at Pat Robertson) and we aren't going to start now.