Nothing really new from this latest critical article about Rudy Giuliani by Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair magazine - unless one hasn’t done their homework?when it comes to?the Mayor.
I had no idea Rudy banned from city buses an ad for the New York magazine with a tagline saying it was “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.”
Par for the course for a candidate who is a big supporter of McCain-Feingold.
Geez….. That was rough, especially for someone who is familiar with his public persona, but not all the behind the scenes. Stapling dogs? That makes the list of one of the most cruel and inhumane things I’ve ever heard about.
Yes, murphy, reports from all areas of Rudy’s tenure as mayor describe him pretty much as an egomaniac. He got upset when others got the attention for something he thought he deserved. For example, all that crime reduction Rudy gets credit for while he was mayor was engineered and carried out by his top cop Bill Bratton. When the press started giving Bratton the credit for cleaning up NYC, Rudy’s ego struck and Hizzoner forced Bratton to resign because he felt Bill was “hogging too many headlines”.
Giuliani has no clear vision for America and no overarching reason he wants to be President other than he thinks he deserves it. That, and 9/11. And maybe a little more 9/11 thrown in there for good measure. Had 9/11 not occurred on his watch, he’d be retired right now with a slew of other decent New York City mayors.
There. That ought to raise some hackles around here.
How does Rudy repsond to this sort of stuff? He’s run a pretty ill-disciplined campaign so far, which he needs to redress pronto. Probably he’s better off just ignoring it, although Kerry probably wishes he hadn’t ignored the Swift Boaters…
This article has a few too many “Giuliani’s said to be…” to be considered much more then a thinly disguised hit piece. But, it underscores a central point, and indicates why, despite his liberal social positions, he’d never fit in as a Democrat- Giuliani is an astounding autocrat. A belief in a strong executive, and a willingness to exercise that leadership, is something I admire. After all, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln are my favorite presidents- two men with an unbending belief in executive power. But, Rudy pushes the concept of power to levels even I find hard to reconcile. The man may or may not be insane (and frankly I don’t believe he is), but he certainly wields authority with a sort of unprecedented (in civilized Democracies) looseness. And I’d certainly agree that his “antics”, combined with his social views and his view of executive power, really make the prospect of him actually ascending to the presidency, rather spectacular.
That’s rught, Rudy is really a fascist. I remember all the concentration camps when I went to visit Manhattan in the 90s. I recall the Jews and Blacks caged up at Yankee Stadium, the death strip on the BQE, the barbed wire and guard towers on 5th Avenue, the gun emplacements on the Verrazano. And of course he was such a dictator that his political enemies and dissidents were taken out and shot immediately. I remember when he shut down the Times and had their eidtorial board hung. These articles are really laughable.
But it shows how desparate the left is, already bringing up insanity and anti-Italian bigotry, hearsay and personal attacks. They’re scared of him because they saw him in action and they know he gets things done. They know he’s doing well against them and has a great chance of beating them in November. They know he doesn’t play nice and won’t pull this compassionate conservatism like Bush did where he sits back and lets the Dems and the Press come after him.
This seems like the most relevant place I can find to post this now. I’ve seen Huckabee mentioned a few times as a potential good VP pick for Giuliani. Based on an interview by Terence Jeffrey in Human Events that I just read I think you can cross him off the list. I can’t find it posted online but here are a few quotes:
Q: Do you think Rudy Giuliani could appeal to Democrats in Arkasas?
HUCKABEE: No. You can’t go to Arkansas and be for things like partial-birth abortion, tax-funded abortion, gun control and same-sex civil unions or marriages and carry that state.
Q: Would Rudy expand the base of the Republican Party in the Midwest, do you think?
HUCKABEE: No, I don’t think so.
Q: [If] there is a third-party candidate who is pro-life and pro-marriage running against a Republican like Rudy Giuliani, which candidate should a good Christian conservative vote for?
HUCKABEE: If Christians don’t vote conscience and conviction, and they only vote parties- if they are purely partisan- then they really disenfranchise themselves from the very basis upon which they said they were involved in politics. They become just another Republican special-interest group. They are no longer part of a principled minority, or, as it were, a majority or constituency.
Q: In that situation, how would you vote, governor?
HUCKABEE: I’ll be very clear: I am a Christian first. I am a Republican second. And so, my convictions are what led me to the Republican Party. And I am not saying that I would never vote for a person who is different from me, because obviously I have to vote for a lot of people who are different from me and have different views. But my value system is the one thing I have to hold on to. A hundred years from now, which party is in power is not going to make a whole lot of difference, but whether I was true to my moral compass means everything.
With respect to what Kevin posted (in #8), this is why I maintain that given how the Mayor has campaigned on abortion and guns his nomination would create a Civil War that splinters the Republican Party. And I think there are too many cool heads leading the party to let that happen.
Romney is not a VP pick. He doesn’t carry his state, he potentially outshines his Pres pick (a la Kerry/Edwards). Romney is a CEO, only interested in the top job.
Thompson by contrast would help lock in the South, and provide star appeal. He could be a VP.
Thompson could probably afford to put Romney at the bottom of the ticket. He’s the most prominent executive who might conceivably be placed at VP (Rudy! the superstar, won’t be placed at the bottom spot of any ticket). Romney could cover for Thompson’s lack of executive experience, and re-inforce the “outsider” image of the ticket. But frankly, Romney/Thompson makes alot more sense for the reasons JayPe noted.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
It appears I haven’t done my homework either.
I had no idea Rudy banned from city buses an ad for the New York magazine with a tagline saying it was “possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.”
Par for the course for a candidate who is a big supporter of McCain-Feingold.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Geez….. That was rough, especially for someone who is familiar with his public persona, but not all the behind the scenes. Stapling dogs? That makes the list of one of the most cruel and inhumane things I’ve ever heard about.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Yes, murphy, reports from all areas of Rudy’s tenure as mayor describe him pretty much as an egomaniac. He got upset when others got the attention for something he thought he deserved. For example, all that crime reduction Rudy gets credit for while he was mayor was engineered and carried out by his top cop Bill Bratton. When the press started giving Bratton the credit for cleaning up NYC, Rudy’s ego struck and Hizzoner forced Bratton to resign because he felt Bill was “hogging too many headlines”.
Giuliani has no clear vision for America and no overarching reason he wants to be President other than he thinks he deserves it. That, and 9/11. And maybe a little more 9/11 thrown in there for good measure. Had 9/11 not occurred on his watch, he’d be retired right now with a slew of other decent New York City mayors.
There. That ought to raise some hackles around here.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Oops… didn’t read far enough in that story to realize the Bratton incident is discussed within. My apologies!
April 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
How does Rudy repsond to this sort of stuff? He’s run a pretty ill-disciplined campaign so far, which he needs to redress pronto. Probably he’s better off just ignoring it, although Kerry probably wishes he hadn’t ignored the Swift Boaters…
April 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
This article has a few too many “Giuliani’s said to be…” to be considered much more then a thinly disguised hit piece. But, it underscores a central point, and indicates why, despite his liberal social positions, he’d never fit in as a Democrat- Giuliani is an astounding autocrat. A belief in a strong executive, and a willingness to exercise that leadership, is something I admire. After all, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln are my favorite presidents- two men with an unbending belief in executive power. But, Rudy pushes the concept of power to levels even I find hard to reconcile. The man may or may not be insane (and frankly I don’t believe he is), but he certainly wields authority with a sort of unprecedented (in civilized Democracies) looseness. And I’d certainly agree that his “antics”, combined with his social views and his view of executive power, really make the prospect of him actually ascending to the presidency, rather spectacular.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
That’s rught, Rudy is really a fascist. I remember all the concentration camps when I went to visit Manhattan in the 90s. I recall the Jews and Blacks caged up at Yankee Stadium, the death strip on the BQE, the barbed wire and guard towers on 5th Avenue, the gun emplacements on the Verrazano. And of course he was such a dictator that his political enemies and dissidents were taken out and shot immediately. I remember when he shut down the Times and had their eidtorial board hung. These articles are really laughable.
But it shows how desparate the left is, already bringing up insanity and anti-Italian bigotry, hearsay and personal attacks. They’re scared of him because they saw him in action and they know he gets things done. They know he’s doing well against them and has a great chance of beating them in November. They know he doesn’t play nice and won’t pull this compassionate conservatism like Bush did where he sits back and lets the Dems and the Press come after him.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
This seems like the most relevant place I can find to post this now. I’ve seen Huckabee mentioned a few times as a potential good VP pick for Giuliani. Based on an interview by Terence Jeffrey in Human Events that I just read I think you can cross him off the list. I can’t find it posted online but here are a few quotes:
Q: Do you think Rudy Giuliani could appeal to Democrats in Arkasas?
HUCKABEE: No. You can’t go to Arkansas and be for things like partial-birth abortion, tax-funded abortion, gun control and same-sex civil unions or marriages and carry that state.
Q: Would Rudy expand the base of the Republican Party in the Midwest, do you think?
HUCKABEE: No, I don’t think so.
Q: [If] there is a third-party candidate who is pro-life and pro-marriage running against a Republican like Rudy Giuliani, which candidate should a good Christian conservative vote for?
HUCKABEE: If Christians don’t vote conscience and conviction, and they only vote parties- if they are purely partisan- then they really disenfranchise themselves from the very basis upon which they said they were involved in politics. They become just another Republican special-interest group. They are no longer part of a principled minority, or, as it were, a majority or constituency.
Q: In that situation, how would you vote, governor?
HUCKABEE: I’ll be very clear: I am a Christian first. I am a Republican second. And so, my convictions are what led me to the Republican Party. And I am not saying that I would never vote for a person who is different from me, because obviously I have to vote for a lot of people who are different from me and have different views. But my value system is the one thing I have to hold on to. A hundred years from now, which party is in power is not going to make a whole lot of difference, but whether I was true to my moral compass means everything.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
With respect to what Kevin posted (in #8), this is why I maintain that given how the Mayor has campaigned on abortion and guns his nomination would create a Civil War that splinters the Republican Party. And I think there are too many cool heads leading the party to let that happen.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Enter Fred Thompson.
He wins going away.
A Fred/Rudy ticket holds the WH in 2008.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
jim,
How about a Romney/Thompson or Thompson/Romney ticket? I’ve mulled it over and can’t see any shortcomings with such a combination…
May 1st, 2007 at 12:03 am
Romney is not a VP pick. He doesn’t carry his state, he potentially outshines his Pres pick (a la Kerry/Edwards). Romney is a CEO, only interested in the top job.
Thompson by contrast would help lock in the South, and provide star appeal. He could be a VP.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Is losing the general election a shortcoming of a Thompson/Romney ticket?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Thompson could probably afford to put Romney at the bottom of the ticket. He’s the most prominent executive who might conceivably be placed at VP (Rudy! the superstar, won’t be placed at the bottom spot of any ticket). Romney could cover for Thompson’s lack of executive experience, and re-inforce the “outsider” image of the ticket. But frankly, Romney/Thompson makes alot more sense for the reasons JayPe noted.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Here’s the link to the full article I posted excerpts from earlier
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20421