I really don’t want this site to become a tit-for-tat attack on one candidate or another. However, in the interest of open and honest debate, it is time to shine the spotlight of scrutiny on one Rudolph Giuliani – because some of what his followers attack his opponents for are what he himself is guilty of as well.
For example, how many times have we had the debate about Romney’s statement, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” that he uttered back in 1994?
Now, how many times have we debated Rudy saying what amounts to the same thing in 1989? Most people, even those of us who follow politics pretty closely, don’t realize Rudy rejected being associated with Ronald Reagan as well. But in an interview in 1989, he was asked what kind of Republican he was, and then specifically asked, “A Reagan Republican?”
His response? “He pauses before answering, ‘I’m a Republican.’”
Let us give pause to this statement. Here we have yet another Republican candidate rejecting a connection to Ronald Reagan. And, as many have pointed out in regards to Romney’s statement, during the Reagan-Bush years. So where’s the outrage? Let’s ask Rudy who he voted for in 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988! I bet he didn’t vote for Reagan! And that means he’s a lousy candidate!
Or, perhaps… it doesn’t really matter. Perhaps it does not matter.
We’ve also been privy to the fact that Romney gave a donation in the amount of $250 to a couple Democrats during primary campaigns in 1992. Despite the fact that he gave over $90,000 to GOP candidates in the past twenty years, this obviously means one of two things: he is either a traitor to the Republican Party, or worse, to his country since one of his Democratic recipients was also a Mormon. But what was Rudy! doing around the same time frame?
How about not just donating to a Democrat in a primary race, but actually endorsing a Democrat in a general election against a GOP candidate? In 1994, Giuliani told us, “‘Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?’ Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It’s a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo.”
So Rudy didn’t want to be connected with Reagan in 1989, but what did he do in the race between Clinton and Dole in 1992? Rudy gave a last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole, but tempered that endorsement just a little bit by telling the country, “most of Clinton’s policies are very similar to most of mine.” During the campaign, he told reporters he would be “open to endorsing Clinton.” So Rudy obviously has a strong past of supporting Republicans in general elections.
Of course, the issue of heroes always comes up. Romney and Rudy both claim Reagan as one of their political heroes now – go figure. And while those statements may be suspect if you contrast them with words both spoke over a decade ago, Rudy went even one step farther in 1992 when he explained who in the Republican Party he desired to emulate: Rockefeller.
That’s right, Rudy openly chooses to be associated with Rockefeller rather than Reagan, saying Rockefeller represents “a tradition in the Republican Party I’ve worked hard to re-kindle – the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition.”
Then, there’s always those pesky 1994 debate videos of Mitt Romney floating around the web. But I have yet to hear anyone talk about when Rudy ran for mayor in 1989 and was endorsed – over the Democratic nominee – by the Liberal Party of New York! In their endorsement, they had some pretty damning words to say about the mayor: “When the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party’s stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party’s views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion.”
And while questions swirl of Romney’s governance of MA and whether or not he governed as a conservative, there can hardly be question of Rudy’s actions while mayor. In 1996, the National Journal reviewed Rudy and found he was wanting. On their economic scale he was rated 44% liberal and 56% conservative. On social issues he was rated 59% liberal and 40% conservative. Those ratings put him on par with conservative powerhouses Lincoln Chaffee (59% liberal, 40% conservative), Olympia Snowe (52% lib, 47% cons), and Arlen Specter (53% lib, 47% cons).
What’s my point of all this? Only to make a plea for honest debate of all the candidates and to show many of the things that disqualify Mitt Romney in some peoples’ minds are the very things that Giuliani is also guilty of – only oftentimes on far greater scales.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
[...] post by HeavyM and software by Elliott [...]
January 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Attacking Rudy? Christ, that is all you Non-Giuliani supporters have been doing?
January 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
One of the sad aspects of politics today is that the two parties have become so, well, partisan. There was a time in politics where the GOP celebrated the fact that we controlled the leadership in NYC, MA, PA, CA, MD, RI, NJ, ME. Now, we condemn people within our own party like Giuliani, Romney, Spector, Chaffee, Whitman, and Snowe for not being Republican enough. We are even upset, even indignant, because a few of our leaders didnt vote a certain way 27 YEARS AGO. While these faithful GOPers may not fit in with the ideals of the party platform, they do fit in with the general opinion of the nation as a whole. Does anyone really think there would ever be a Republican mayor of New York, or Senator from Rhode Island, or Governor of Massachusetts, if every candidate adhered to the exact tenet of the GOP platform? Of course not. For a party to survive it needs to have enough give and take to allow a broader group of members. I’m not saying one must vote for any Republican candidate no matter what. We have primaries to ensure the party stays close to the most-followed beliefs within each party. But we shouldn’t be attacking fellow Republicans simply because they reside in the more left-leaning segment of the party. There’s been a lot of mention of Reagan in the past few days on this site, but not too much adherence to his 11th commandment. I think we can all respectfully disagree with a candidate without sounding like the party we hope to defeat in Nov 2008.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:48 am
HeavyM. . .I didn’t mean to sound like I was accusing you of doing the attacking that I condemn in what I wrote above. You bring up very good points about Rudy that must be addressed by him if he wants the GOP nomination. I was just speaking generally about the sad state of political discourse in today’s American society.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:52 am
“Here’s some straight talk: I’m a proud Reagan Republican.” – John McCain, 2/24/00
January 26th, 2007 at 1:02 am
“Let’s ask Rudy who he voted for in 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988! I bet he didn’t vote for Reagan! And that means he’s a lousy candidate!”
Considering that Rudy worked for the Reagan Justice Dep’t, he probably did vote for Reagan. Unless anyone would honestly suggest that a guy would vote to lose his job.
“but what did he do in the race between Clinton and Dole in 1992?”
Nothing, considering that the race between Clinton and Dole wasn’t until 1996.
“he told reporters he would be “open to endorsing Clinton.”"
Considering he was going to be running for reelection in just a year in a city that adored Bill Clinton, I think this was an acceptable bit of posturing. You have to win before you can govern.
“That’s right, Rudy openly chooses to be associated with Rockefeller rather than Reagan, saying Rockefeller represents “a tradition in the Republican Party I’ve worked hard to re-kindle – the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition.”"
The joke was on New York liberals, as Rudy governed far more like Reagan than Rocky.
“He agreed with the Liberal Party’s views on affirmative action,”
Which is why he scrapped NYC’s quota system for contractors.
“gay rights, gun control,”
Nothing we didn’t know there.
“school prayer”
Is this even an issue in 2007? Come on.
“and tuition tax credits.”
Find me one Republican or Democrat that opposes tuition tax credits. It’s like opposing fun.
“As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion.”"
While he should’ve pulled a Roy Moore and declared abortion illegal throughout the city, rule of law be damned! Because, as we all know, morality trumps the rule of law in this country! Oh. Wait.
“On their economic scale he was rated 44% liberal and 56% conservative.”
So he’s center-right on economics. Check.
“On social issues he was rated 59% liberal and 40% conservative. Those ratings put him on par with conservative powerhouses Lincoln Chaffee (59% liberal, 40% conservative), Olympia Snowe (52% lib, 47% cons), and Arlen Specter (53% lib, 47% cons).”
And he’s a social liberal. Fine. We already knew that. I’m trying to find the news here. I’m about to go dig out my microscope.
I’m far more concerned with how Rudy actually governed than with what he said during his campaigns in hyper-liberal NYC. Maybe I’m proving some Romneyite point by saying that, but it’s far too late here in the east for me to worry about such things.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Dave,
I’m far more concerned with how Rudy actually governed than with what he said during his campaigns in hyper-liberal NYC. Maybe I’m proving some Romneyite point by saying that, but it’s far too late here in the east for me to worry about such things.
True. But the difference is that Rudy held true to his convictions whereas Romney changed his whenever the next election was coming up.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Didn’t Rudy work FOR Reagan’s justice department?
January 26th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Mike,
Yes. Yes he did.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:54 am
If Rudy was simply a one term Mayor who’s entire political career existed of nothing but campaigning political maneuvering, instead of being arguably the most prolific Mayor in the history of the United States, who governed in a very Reagan conservative manner, then I would wholly agree that trusting him more than Mitt Romney is nothing but hypocrisy. But since that’s not the case, I’m giving Rudy the benefit of the doubt.
To be honest, Rudy shouldn’t have said he was a Reagan Republican. Reagan definitely wouldn’t have been as successful as Rudy was in reforming NYC. Rudy was a Rudy Republican, a breed far more effective (A bit more like Regan, but more so.)
As a disclaimer, this isn’t coming from a Rudy ’08 supporter. I’m 100% in the Gingrich camp.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Which part of “moral values” NOT equalling Rudy’s stances is hard to comprehend?
January 26th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Am I the only one here who doesn’t, in 2006, see any value in wanting to be a Reagen Republican?
January 26th, 2007 at 7:52 am
“I think this was an acceptable bit of posturing. You have to win before you can govern.” There it is DaveG. You’ve just nullified every bit of criticism you’ve ever leveled at Romney or exposed yourself as a hypocrite. Are you suggesting that Romney wasn’t running for election in a state that “despised Reagan” or “despised pro-life convictions” or “loved gay rights”? He had to win before he could be elected after all.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:55 am
jake, Kris, et al,
This piece wasn’t intended as just a hit piece on Rudy. I hoped my last paragraph in the OP would clear that up. My apologies if you took it that way.
DaveG, there’s no “news” in this piece – just like there was no “news” in Republius’ piece on holding Romney’s feet to the fire yesterday. Just asking for equal time and equal treatment of the candidates.
My intent with this piece was to make a plea for honest debate about the candidates. It seems that the same folks who attack Romney for various things are the same ones who give Rudy! a pass on the same issues, even though he suffers from them even moreso than Mitt does.
And lo and behold, when confronted with these same issues, Rudy supporters respond in the same way that Romney supporters do. Go figure! It feels a little different when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn’t it?
Look, I don’t care who someone voted for in 1980. Can I say that loud enough or enough times? I don’t think many people care. Those that do need to get over themselves. I don’t care if both of these men at one point over 13 years ago didn’t want to be associated with Reagan. It doesn’t matter! I don’t care that Romney gave $250 to two Democrats in a primary once upon a time, and I don’t really care that Rudy endorsed a Democrat in the general election 13 years ago.
But we can’t hold one candidate to a higher standard than the other, simply because one is Rudy! the National Hero. Romney and Rudy both held liberal social stances at one time. Romney saw the light and changed his mind, and is attacked for it. One would assume, though, based on posturing of Rudy supporters, that when Rudy announces his change of heart on these issues he will be embraced for them (indeed, Rudy supporters are on record on this site suggesting to Rudy that he must announce a change in his positions to have a chance at the nomination).
So can we please just be honest with ourselves here?
January 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Matt, well said in #13.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
DaveG:
Thank you so much for your point-by-point refutation and repudiation of HeavyM’s hatchet-job on Rudy! By the time I finished reading that piece, but before I read your piece, I wondered to myself if I could calm down enough to answer it rationally. You did, and I salute you.
I have certainly come to understand, after almost 50 years “in the game”, that tolerating tit-for-tat between and among supporters of differing candidates for the same office, juvenile though such perhaps may be, is more-or-less a part of the cost-of-doing-business for anyone who wants to be active in politics. Despite his self-justificatory disclaimer, HeavyM’s piece was not merely tit-for-tat, it was purely a Philippic, in the same league with Kate O’Bierne’s shameful piece in National Review last July. Essentially, he took one ambiguous sentence from an 18 year-old campaign and built thereupon a splenetic screed. No one, let alone this site, should tolerate such a thing. Thank you again for your cool-headed refutations.
I must say, however, that this is the sort of thing I have come to expect from Romney supporters. This is probably, I would say, born out of their frustration with the candidate of their choice. He is hopelessly mired in single, or low double, digits in all the polls, several country miles behind Rudy and McCain. On average, he is even running distinctly behind Newt Gingrich, who isn’t even running. Moreover, as LJ points out: “Rudy held true to his convictions whereas Romney changed his whenever the next election was coming up.” As Steve points out, Romney is but a one-tem governor “who’s entire political career [consisted] of nothing but campaigning [and] political maneuvering”.
The only attraction that I can see that Romney ever presented to the GOP was that he was a Republican, even if perhaps in name only, who was elected Governor of Massachusetts, probably the bluest of blue states. Well, Bill Weld did that, and Bill Weld was actually re-elected as Governor before he decided, perhaps Quixotically, to take on John Kerry for the Senate. Romney, on the other hand, more-or-less admitted he couldn’t be re-elected governor, when he eschewed running for re-election. Bill Weld for President? I don’t think so! Paul Cellucci was also elected Governor of Massachusetts once as a Republican. Paul Cellucci for President? Yeah, right! Would anyone have supported George Bush for President in 2000, if he had not run for re-election in Texas in 1998, offering as his excuse only that he could begin his campaign for President two years early. Well, perhaps some, but damn few.
By the bye, not only did Rudy work for the Reagan DOJ, but Ronald Reagan, in 1981, appointed Rudy as Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the department. Rudy, at 36, thus became the youngest person to hold that position, I believe ever, but certainly in a very long time. In this position, Rudy supervised all of the US Attorney Offices’ Federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service. Before that, Rudy was appointed by Gerald Ford as Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General, from 1975-1977, beginning when Rudy was but 31 years old.
In 1983, Rudy voluntarily gave up this high position in Washington to return to his beloved home town and “hop into the trenches” fighting crime and corruption as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The degree to which he succeeded in that job, in prosecuting the Mob, Wall Street inside traders, and corrupt politicians, both in and out of the Koch Administration, is well known.
Finally, as to the 1989, New York City Mayoral Election. I know there are many contributors to this site who have adult memories of that race, as well as some who do not. I was actually involved in that election. In 1987-1988, I was actually urged by some of my friends and acquaintances, including one Reagan Cabinet Secretary, to make a Bill Buckley/1965 style run for Mayor. Alas, however, I had neither Bill’s wit, his name-recognition, nor his toleration level for that sort of thing. I did, however, actively support Ron Lauder in the GOP Primary, then supporting Rudy in the general election as the Republican candidate.
I had then, and still have, genuine admiration and respect for Ron Lauder, and I had, and still have, a slightly more than passing social acquaintance with his (late) mother and his sister. I supported him in 1989, however, principally because I thought then that Rudy had gone “over the top” in his prosecutions of my friends and colleagues on Wall Street. Well, it was I who changed his tune, not Rudy who changed his, when I had the proverbial wool lifted from my eyes and saw the true colours of my former friends and colleagues.
Those of us Republicans who were actually in the trenches in New York in 1989, had not the slightest doubt of where Rudy stood, or that he was the Reagan Republican in the race. Similarly, we had no doubt as to how Rudy’s statement that “I am a Republican” was intended. On the one hand, it was Rudy’s version of the “Big Tent” view of the GOP, rallying to his banner all people across the political spectrum who were nevertheless all willing to call themselves Republicans. At the same time, it was Rudy’s nod to the political reality of running for office as a Republican in hyper-liberal New York. Indeed, the Great City was actually far more hyper-liberal in those days than it is now. Compare Michael Bloomberg to David Dinkins or Ed Koch. The change in the City’s general attitude since 1989, is due almost exclusively to one man: Rudolph Giuliani!
The ultimate point is this: For someone, in 2007, to take Rudy’s statement from 1989, and use it as the jumping-off point for a Philippic screed against Rudy is downright beneath contempt, and should not be tolerated. Sadly, this is, however, what one has come to expect from the supporters of the former Governor of Massachusetts! Of all, the persons listed in this site’s Power Rankings, and when taking into account all the positions, and the entire careers of both men, Rudy is by far by far the one most like Ronald Reagan!
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
January 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Well, well, well! Speak of the Devil! In my most recent posting in this space, posted less than 15 minutes ago, I mentioned former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci. I believe that was certainly one of the very few, if not the only, mention of the good Governor, on this site. Indeed, I had to resort to Wikipedia, even to remember his name! And now, less that 15 minutes later we have this:
“In what can only be seen as a blow to the Romney campaign, former Massachusetts governor Paul Cellucci announced today he would be supporting Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008. Cellucci was the governor that served from 1997-2001 (just prior to Romney), and from whom the Romney campaign was actively seeking an endorsement.
Cellucci did say that Romney is a “capable leader,” that there was “no snub intended,” and “This is not anti-Mitt. This is pro-Rudy.”
Still, even with those niceties from his predecessor, the Romney camp must be stinging after this one.”
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
January 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Luther,
Thank you very much for proving my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You are upset that one sentence from a campaign more than 13 years ago is being used against your man, and rightfully so.
Should we Romney supporters not also be upset that one sentence from a campaign more than 13 years ago is being leveled against our man as well?
Your response just overwhelmingly proved my point.
This was no hatchet job on Rudy any more than hit pieces on Romney are hatchet jobs on him – that was the entire point of this article, and you seem to have missed it.
Attacks on Rudy using outdated sentences should not be allowed – you are correct. But then, neither should attacks on Romney using outdated sentences either.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
HeavyM:
You, my friend, are the one who bears the charge of hypocrisy! Nowhere did I object to the use of the sentence uttered by Rudy, some 18 years ago. Indeed, I actually heard it, and discussed it myself. What I do object to is the distortion of that sentence, and the use of that distorted meaning as the basis for a Philippic screed, composed, as DaveG has shown., point by point, of lies, half-truths, and innuendo. Moreover, Mitt Romney, to my knowledge, has never had anything similar done to him. He has been confronted with actual positions that he took, as well as statements he made that were crystal clear in their meaning. To compare that with what you did to Rudy is the rankest hypocrisy. As Bill Clinton might say: “I feel your pain”, and frustration in that you have hitched your wagon to a political star that is going nowhere. I shall continue, however, to call you on it whenever you direct that pain and frustration at Rudy.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I really like Mitt and Rudy and think that either one would make an excellent nominee and president. (I prefer Mitt because of his exceptional business background and what I perceive as a special ability to forge innovative solutions to complex problems, but I know firsthand from living in Manhattan before and during Rudy what a great, conservative mayor Rudy was.)
Here are my questions: is there really such enmity between the supporters of these two candidates among most of the posters/readers here as some of the postings suggest? Aren’t both of these men excellent possibilities? For how many of us Romney or Rudy supporters is the other the second choice or at least an acceptable choice?
January 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
What makes Rudy a very special candidate is his performance after 911.
This outstanding level of leadership trumps everything else.
Rudy is the only candidate that can save the GOP in 2008.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
The 9/11 thing’s a front. Rudy’s a die-hard liberal who thinks people are stupid enough to believe him when he says he’s a conservative. Now if he was running for the Democrats…
January 26th, 2007 at 11:33 am
GOPActivist:
Thank you, indeed. I could not have put that better, and certainly would not have put it as succinctly as you did! If indeed, brevity is the soul of political wit, you are a master.
Steve:
Thank you also for your comments about Rudy! I support Rudy for just the reasons that GOPActivist put so well and so succinctly above. That said, as I have said on my own site, and elsewhere, I am more intellectually and philosophically in tune with Newt that with any other politician on the scene today. The thought of a Rudy/Newt ticket almost makes me weak in the knees. That is if both of them could sublimate their very considerable egos in order to yoke themselves together as a team. I have enough respect for both of them to believe that they could indeed do it.
Think of it! Rudy, as President, would provide the bare-knuckle, head-cracking leadership, just as he did in New York. Newt, from his perch as President of the Senate, would provide the ideas and vision that this country is so sorely lacking, just as he has continued to do constantly since he left the Congress. There hasn’t been a governing tandem like that ever. Sure, ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished!
January 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
So, the best way to beat Hillary is to throw all our conservative values in the trash and run someone just like her? Oh, Rudy’s not a liberal, he doesn’t like big spending and he’ll promise to throw a carrot to the social conservatives!
Big deal. Anybody can do that. I’d rather have a real conservative than Rudy the phony media-proclaimed hero of 9/11, three-time married, pro-death, pro-homosexual, anti-God, former mayor of the city with one of the biggest abortion rates in the country.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I avoid disparaging other Republican candidates. With the exception of a few light jibes at Huckabee, i have not and will not do so. I find Rudy a perfectly acceptable choice, as I’ve made clear numerous times. I simply happen to prefer Mitt. From my experience the emnity against the other’s preferred candidate has sprung almost entirely from Rudy or McCain supporters. Romney supporters such as myself object when a double standard is being employed, whereby it’s ok to accuse Romney of being a slave to the Mormon church, on the basis of one donation, and in the face of evidence that he has actually donated fewer dollars to Mormon candidates then their prevalence in the population would suggest, yet its never even considered whether or not George Bush is beholden to Lone Star residents because he has a disproportionate number of them in positions of power. We object when the same people who insist that Romney’s past statements, rather then his actions, rule the day, simultaneously forgive Rudy his “posturing” because he acted in the interests of winning election/re-election, a necessary element to governance. Anyone who can objectively examine the commentary of those on this site towards these issues, and come to the conclusion that Rudy supporters aren’t painting the world in pinstripes, simply doesn’t have a serious grip on reality in my opinion.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I am a staunch Romney supporter and in answer to #20, I don’t see anyone who has a horse in the race willing to even think of a second at this point and that includes me. They’re all in exploratory mode. It’s going to be this way until these people start making their final decisions to run and the weak ones start dropping off. I think that this is where a lot of this infighting is coming from which in a lot of ways I believe is healthy. Healthy because we need to know about each candidate whether pro, con or anti, we need to put everyone through the refiners fire. Keep it coming is what I say.
Now to the pro-Rudy crowd
I’ll tell you why Rudy will not be the next POTUS if he’s the nominee. “GOP Activist” in #21 thinks what everyone thinks about Rudy. Anyone in and around NYC believes that he can do nothing wrong after what he did in 911. He deserves his props no doubt and I’ll be the first to give them. There are a few problems for Rudy though.
If you think that moderates are going to vote for Rudy because that’s what the media says, you’re wrong. Why? Because that’s what the media says, just like they’re saying today that Chuck Hagel is a strong presidential candidate. We know why they’re taking a liking to him. Another is, if you take 911 away Rudy only looks “so-so” to Republicans. When talking about Rudy, 911 WILL NOT and I repeat WILL NOT matter in a general election. If you don’t believe me 911 has been the most smothered topic by the Democrat “Machine” (MSM, Hollywood, Academia) when discussing politics and foreign policy. You don’t think that they can do it when it comes to Rudy? They have that pillow firmly on 911 and the “Machine” isn’t going to let go until no one talks about it, which they even know is impossible, but it will be proactively dealt with as it always has.
Luther Hardy said this in #16; “Of all, the persons listed in this site’s Power Rankings, and when taking into account all the positions, and the entire careers of both men, Rudy is by far by far the one most like Ronald Reagan!”. Wow, talk about someone who carries Rudy’s water. Please enlighten us on “all” those positions that I’m missing where he’s MOST like Reagan.
We need to be honest with ourselves. Rudy did things to get elected in his city just as much as Romney did to get elected in his state. Rudy’s NOT a Social Conservative and let’s judge that by what he and Romney DID in that aspect and in their respective offices considering where they led from. I believe Romney’s actions speak much louder for the social conservative charge than Rudy’s. If you don’t think so, okay well then let’s go to their personal lives because again we’re talking about Presidential politics and you have to look at it in those terms. You know what? I’d rather not for expediency but suffice it to say that Romney again is far superior in living a values conservative life than Rudy.
But again we’re going to take “words” from over 13 years ago and a couple of dollars [to Romney] that he gave to Democrats right? Or maybe if we apply the same standards to Romney as we do to Rudy, Romney is head and shoulders MOST like Reagan as a president.
EVERYONE in presidential exploratory mode in the GOP and in the Democrat party is scared of Romney and you can count that Rudy’s people are no different. The only chance that any of these campaigns have is to beat him up as much as they can before the whole country gets to know Mitt Romney. If you look at how these exploratory committees are running, Romney’s is the only one playing to win and being pro-active, while everyone else is trying to pick him off. It’s a stark contrast between what the Romney camp is doing as opposed to the others that look like they’re trying to keep their numbers up or trying to take the other person down [particularly Romney] which is what we continue to see from the other committees.
The other tell tale story of how effective Romney is, is to look at who the other side is going after. The DNC is proactively putting stuff out on Romney. Why would they bother if his polling shows “low numbers”? Why bother if he’s really not that popular or well-known among the GOP? Could it be because they know that there’s a discrepancy between the “well-known” candidates and those less known and Romney seems to be an anomaly? A better measurement would be to take polling data on candidates based on recognition as opposed to this tier system they have if you really want to see where they’re at. The “machine” isn’t putting Romney in the top three because he’s popular either. That goes to McCain and Rudy. In Romney’s case he’s in the top three because he’s effective and doing a better job at putting together his campaign than everyone else.
Looks to me like there’s a lot more work for you Rudy followers than you’re thinking.
It’s time to get working.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
A few thoughts.
First, with contributors to this site openly supporting one specific 2008 GOP candidate over the others, it was inevitable that the debates would go as they have. I was hoping contributors would stay neutral for awhile, but that is not my call. As soon as the public debates ensue, it is liable to be a free for all around here.
Second, as to when Rudy Giuliani should be scrutinized, it seems to me it should be once he formally announces he is running and addresses specific issues, which he has not done yet. Because Romney has done the above he is more fair game at this point, but all the candidates’ times will come.
Third, I thought DaveG did an excellent job herein of rebutting much of what HeavyM criticizes Giuliani for. No doubt that the Giuliani ideology does not match up exactly with Reagan given the departures in the social areas. But, with all due respect, any criticism of Giuliani as not being a Reagan conservative that fails to mention that Giuliani was appointed to multiple positions by President Reagan in the Department of Justice (Assistant Attorney General and U.S. Attorney) and invokes President Reagan’s name a lot when campaigning is telling a lot less than the full story.
Finally, Romney supporters refuse to acknowledge that the main reason their candidate opens himself up to so much scrutiny is because he has changed his positions on so many fundamental issues. For whatever weaknesses Giuliani may have, and certainly he has them, changing positions is not one of them. You can argue how closely Giuliani mirrors Reagan, but you cannot argue that the Mayor lacks being genuine in his beliefs and ideology.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I think HeavyM makes a good point. Romney said things way back to try to get elected in a uberliberal state, so did Rudy. We don’t have to hold that against them unless they have followed their statements up with concrete action that shows they are not conservative.
I am surprised at how upset the Rudy people are over this reminder of Rudy’s past. You do remember that Rudy is not an orthodox conservative, right? Depending on the similarity of your positions to Rudy’s, you have all weighed the conservative/liberal elements of Rudy’s philosophy and decided that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses. Just remember, Rudy has said a lot of things that make conservatives cringe, so don’t get all upset anytime someone brings that up.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
David, thank you… I’m glad I managed to get my point across to a few people.
Republius, as I’ve said, my goal in this article was never to simply criticize Giuliani – to boil it down to that is to miss the entire point. It was an exercise in applying the same standards used to attack Romney to everyone’s golden boy, Rudy. And surprise, surprise, using the same exact methods, Rudy fails as much or more so as Romney.
Does that mean I don’t support Romney or Rudy any more? Not at all. Of course, I’ll have to think twice about voting for Rudy if he wins the nomination, but that’s not the point of this article.
I think the Rudy! supporters have finally shown their true colors and react just like Romney guys do when these standards are unfairly applied to our guy as well.
I consider this little experiment a grand success for those of us who understand what its intent was.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Republius,
Also, I’d like to just make it clear that I meant what I said at the very beginning of this article: this site will lose a whole lot of appeal if it denigrates into a tit for tat among the contributors over who’s guy is the better candidate. I don’t intend to do that, and I intend to be as fair and balanced in my reporting on this site as I can be.
I hope that’s shown in the post I made after this one, reporting how Romney lost an endorsement to Giuliani and not trying to spin that in any way. I look forward to good, open, and honest debate on this site with you and everyone else who posts here.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Also, Romney has not formally announced Republius. He’s only formed an exploratory committee. And, I might add, this committee was formed well after Giuliani’s committee.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
To address a few points raised in the post, Giuliani states very clearly in his book “Leadership” (Miramax Books, 2002) that he has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1976 – before that he openly admits to having been a Democrat, but he had an awakening of sorts and changed his registration to Independent in the 1970s and finally to Republican in 1980. As for Reaganism: Regardless of how Giuliani classifies himself, he has more connections to the Reagan administration than any other candidate (he was the number three official in the Reagan Justice Department from 1981-83).
January 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Romney hasn’t flipped on a lot of issues. Abortion, and maybe government funding (maybe not?) for embryonic stem-cell research. Those are two issues among many. On abortion, one could say that Rudy has flipped a little, too. He has always been pro-abortion “rights,” but it is only very recently that I have heard him voice support for originalists on the Supreme Court and against Roe vs. Wade.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Worth noting,
Romney: “I was an independent during Reagan/Bush, I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush”
Rudy: “[Are you a Reagan Republican] I am a Republican”
To recap,
Romney: Independent during the Reagan administration, not sure whether or not he ever supported Reagan.
Rudy: Worked in Reagan’s administration, voted for him, and only upon asking whether or not he would classify himself as a Reagan Republican, denied to belittle himself by narrowing himself to just a Reagan Republican.
Once again, I’ll say I am not a Rudy supporter for ’08, I’m just someone who finds this to be ridiculous, while the complaints about Romney very legitimate.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
For what it’s worth, I find all complaints against where Romney and Rudy stood in the 1980′s and 1990′s entirely rediculous and irrelevant.
Welcome to 2008. Anybody who runs a smear campaign against an opponent’s rhetoric from 15 years ago instead of that opponent’s recent record of accomplishments is on thin ice.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
murphy,
Exactly what I was trying to point out. Thank you. The problem is, folks seem to only think it’s ridiculous when the charges are against Rudy and not Romney.
January 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Agreed. If a person thinks it’s more relevant to talk about 1992, I’ll disagree. But if that person shows a bias for applying that rediculous standard to only one candidate, it strips them of credibility…and damages the potential of this website.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Everyone is entitled to a hit piece about someone they don’t like. I admit to this with Tancredo (but document my sources). Fact is I’ve made it one of my missions in life to take him out politically. I’m honest about it.
I do not like Romney. I think he’s a GOP Ted Danson look-alike who will cause massive deficts if he is elected, just to keep him in hair-spray. Aside from that, it isn’t his constant flipping and flopping that bothers me, it was an appearence on FOX where he managed to get the Declaration of Independence mixed up with the Constitution. I also do not like the fact that he said we must be willing to give up some of our freedom in order to be safe. To misquote Franklin…anyone who is willing to give up the former to keep the latter deserves neither. I don’t think Romeny truly understands what Freedom is.
I am biased toward Giuliani. I don’t care how he voted ten days ago let alone nearly three decades ago.
Full Disclosure:
And I will admit that in the past I have been known to vote for both Fritz Hollings D-SC for Senate and Butler Derrick D-SC, District 3. In 1994, as chairman of the Oconee County GOP (SC) I went on the air (debating my Dem counterpart) and officially endorsed the Dem state wide candidate for a specific office. Someone had to do it. By the time I arrived home, Governor Carroll Campbell was on the phone waiting for me, to congratulate me for having the courage to speak up where no one else in the state would. The Dem won, then switched parties right after the general election (which he had told me he would do)!
The Pink Flamingo
January 27th, 2007 at 2:26 am
SJ Reidhead,
For what it’s worth, deficits with Romney should be the least of your concerns. Every candidate has things voters might not like, but faulting Romney on fiscal policy would be like faulting Tancredo for being too soft on immigrants.
January 27th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Wait, let me understand this right. . .Romney brings up Reagan’s name is is shunned for doing so, and Rudy specifically does not bring up Reagan’s name and is also shunned for it? Do we like Reagan or don’t we?
This whole “who supported Reagan in the 80s and how strong was that support” business is getting rediculous. When terrorists are boarding planes for the US, will they change their mind because President Giuilani voted for Reagan in 1980? Will they send more terrorists because President Romney used to be an independent? Don’t we have better standards to judge those we consider to lead us? Voting for Reagan doesn’t make one a Reagan Conservative any more than voting for an American Idol contestant makes one a good singer. Let’s start examioning the actual records and stop asking who each candidate voted for. After all, aren’t the secret ballots for a reason?