Rudy Guiliani Interview

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/cl...udy.medium.cnn


An interview can be misleading, and certainly should not be used to judge someone's merits soley, but this seems very positive to me.

I hold some extreme right views, and Rudy is certainly not extreme and only moderately right, but he seems sensible.

And - as much as I support George Bush and what he's trying to do - Rudy's frank sensibility seems appealing to me after this administration has ended.

I would urge right wingers to really think about what is important. Dont let issues the president really cant change (gay rights, gun control, ect) get in the way of a real leader.

Rudy actually seems to be focusing less on the platform and more on how he will administrate, which is really where the focus should be for this job. The laws are made in the congress.

At this point, Id much rather vote for someone who doesnt really have a problem with gay people but will focus on running the country, as opposed to someone who is crystal on the issues, but doesnt know how to make things happen.

What do you think?

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/cl...udy.medium.cnn


An interview can be misleading, and certainly should not be used to judge someone's merits soley, but this seems very positive to me.

I hold some extreme right views, and Rudy is certainly not extreme and only moderately right, but he seems sensible.

And - as much as I support George Bush and what he's trying to do - Rudy's frank sensibility seems appealing to me after this administration has ended.

I would urge right wingers to really think about what is important. Dont let issues the president really cant change (gay rights, gun control, ect) get in the way of a real leader.

Rudy actually seems to be focusing less on the platform and more on how he will administrate, which is really where the focus should be for this job. The laws are made in the congress.

At this point, Id much rather vote for someone who doesnt really have a problem with gay people but will focus on running the country, as opposed to someone who is crystal on the issues, but doesnt know how to make things happen.

What do you think?

President Guiliani... Well said. Opps, I meant mayor.

I like the guy a lot. I really hope he wins.

[Goofball]

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/cl...udy.medium.cnn


An interview can be misleading, and certainly should not be used to judge someone's merits soley, but this seems very positive to me.

I hold some extreme right views, and Rudy is certainly not extreme and only moderately right, but he seems sensible.

And - as much as I support George Bush and what he's trying to do - Rudy's frank sensibility seems appealing to me after this administration has ended.

I would urge right wingers to really think about what is important. Dont let issues the president really cant change (gay rights, gun control, ect) get in the way of a real leader.

Rudy actually seems to be focusing less on the platform and more on how he will administrate, which is really where the focus should be for this job. The laws are made in the congress.

At this point, Id much rather vote for someone who doesnt really have a problem with gay people but will focus on running the country, as opposed to someone who is crystal on the issues, but doesnt know how to make things happen.

What do you think?

PJ, you're bringing a tear to my eye, sonny-jim...

[Crazed Rabbit]

I wouldn't mind a move away from the recent GOP platform of "OMG! Gays are bad!" whilst doing nothing that used to be on their platform (Fiscal accountability, ending the death tax, school vouchers, etc.) but I see gun control as an important view into the mind of a politician - do they respect the people and trust them to do difficult tasks, and respect the bill of rights, or do they treat them as children who need to be nannied about, and ignore the bill of rights?

CR

[ShadeHonestus]

Social Conservative or Fiscal Conservative...at this point I'd take a Fiscal like Guiliani or Slick Willy. However Guiliani is a bit dangerous to the GoP because of his lack of social conservative credentials. Dangerous because he'd be an intoxifying leader who would move the Republican out of its domain and would have to court new suitors to have a reputable base which fiscal conservatism does as it always attracts the moderates. If Big G wins the presidency, however, it will probably hail the deah of the republican party itself as we know it. A large part of the Republican base votes on social matters and after being betrayed by the Bush administration for the last 7 years they didn't show up last November. You can already hear the drum beats of wacky moderate Republicans claiming that Reagan had no cred or rep as a social conservative. They're trying to move and dump issues. It will get worse for conservatives.

[econ21]

If Big G wins the presidency, however, it will probably hail the deah of the republican party itself as we know it. A large part of the Republican base votes on social matters and after being betrayed by the Bush administration for the last 7 years they didn't show up last November.

Well, the "death of the republican party itself as we know it" is not the same thing as the death of the republican party per se. I suspect the hardcore who stay at home in protest are fewer than the floating voters in the centre who may be attracted by a moderate. I don't know much about the US case, but that seems to be true in the UK of both the right and the left. Labour won power by moving to the centre; the Conservatives are shaping up to do the same despite picking a leader who probably took drugs in his youth and at least pretends to be moderate on a lot of social issues. Maybe it's true in the US too? Clinton was a "new" Democrat and Bush Jr offered a "kinder, gentler" conservatism.

In a two party system, the hardcore don't really have anywhere else to go. And I suspect US/UK voters are swayed by the appearance of competence, and indeed perhaps even just appearance itself. Guiliani has always struck me as a charismatic figure, without being the certifiable mad-eyed personality that I rather suspect McCain is.

[Geoffrey S]

I would urge right wingers to really think about what is important. Dont let issues the president really cant change (gay rights, gun control, ect) get in the way of a real leader.

Rudy actually seems to be focusing less on the platform and more on how he will administrate, which is really where the focus should be for this job. The laws are made in the congress.

At this point, Id much rather vote for someone who doesnt really have a problem with gay people but will focus on running the country, as opposed to someone who is crystal on the issues, but doesnt know how to make things happen.

What do you think?

I don't know enough about Giuliani to comment on him specifically, but I do completely and thoroughly agree with the sentiment. A very sensible post, and one of which I hope the underlying thought will be echoed in the next presidential elections.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here's a Newsweek article. Rudi's temperament

[Xiahou]

Here's a Newsweek article. Rudi's temperament

Despite what the hit-piece says, I'm still more concerned about McCain's temper. Not that I'm a Guiliani convert by any stretch...

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont think his gun control stance in New York should necessarily be applied to his national outlook. If anything, he is a political animal and I think he understands the republican base fairly well. Thats not to say he shouldnt be scrutinized for it.

As for the article, even if it is completely true, I dont see a major issue represented in it. The man might have a bad temper, but does it affect his leadership?

Personally, im not hitching my wagon just yet. He does seem much better to me than McCain, though. Unfortunately, theres also plenty of fodder for the non profit campaigns...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Giuliani was very impressive during and after 9/11. Very calm and he seemed very much in control of things. His 'zero tolerance' anti-crime policy in New York is legendary around the world as well. So if it's going to be a Republican, I wouldn't mind if it's him.

McCain is what my favourite brand of chips / french fries are called. I don't really know much about the person.

And PJ: great sentiments.

[Spino]

Here's a Newsweek article. Rudi's temperament

That was pretty funny. Two pages on how Rudy can be an insensitive meany from time to time! Not one instance of loutishness, drunken assault or him sending dirty text messages to comely pages... booooring!

I'm not surprised that this article exists at all, one of the reasons why Giuliani was hated when he was mayor of NYC was because of his unusually insensitive (i.e. big meany) attitude when it came to issues most politicians would dance delicately around. I recall one instance where he appointed a female executive from the private sector to some high position in NYC's Dept. of Education. This ruffled alot of feathers and the press took him to task on it, citing her lack of credentials and experience in public education, etc. Giuliani had a field day with it and shot back with a sarcastic quip about how most NYC educators were similarly inexperienced or something to that extent. It was highly amusing to fed up NYers like myself but the press and the bureaucrats were appalled. FYI, NY public schools are, for the most part, garbage and have been so for a long time now. The NYC Dept. of Education is but one of many Gordian knots... in this case tied with titanium rope... that confronts any NY politician who considers him/herself a 'reformer'.

I'm really enthusiastic about Rudy running for president. If he simply sticks to that no-nonsense, straight talking attitude which made him a successful mayor he should thrash the competition. The key is for the Republican party to not delude itself into thinking another GW-esque candidate or for that matter, McCain, can win over the public's heart and mind this time around. McCain's decidedly un-Republican views on things like immigration will really cost him if the issue is brought to the forefront during the primaries.

The biggest obstacle to Giuliani is McCain, if he can get past him (I don't see Romney being a real force this election) he'll be home free. All Hillary has to offer is the usual no position, flip-flopping rhetoric her party is famous for over the last 15 years and she should get her rear handed to her on a plate.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I was waiting for you to chime in Spino, knowing you are from NY City and would have first hand knowledge with Hizzoner. Being from Western New York(the "wilderness in a NYC er's eyes), my memory (dang aneurism) of Rudy was fuzzy at best.

[Xiahou]

The biggest obstacle to Giuliani is McCain, if he can get past him (I don't see Romney being a real force this election) he'll be home free. All Hillary has to offer is the usual no position, flip-flopping rhetoric her party is famous for over the last 15 years and she should get her rear handed to her on a plate.

I don't see McCain as much of a contender in the primaries- too many hardcore conservatives remember McCain's flipflopping on tax cuts and his opposition to free speech to ever support him. Romney has piles of personal wealth and has been the most successful at fund-raising thus far. I think that's going to make him a threat.

Personally, I'm still hoping for a darkhorse candidate that I can actually get excited about to come forward.

[Spino]

I was waiting for you to chime in Spino, knowing you are from NY City and would have first hand knowledge with Hizzoner. Being from Western New York(the "wilderness in a NYC er's eyes), my memory (dang aneurism) of Rudy was fuzzy at best.

Wilderness indeed. Tell me, is it still fashionable to wear deerskin shirts and coonskin caps in those parts? Tres chic!

Seriously now, speaking as a native Brooklynite I can tell you there are few reasons to get excited over politics in this neck of the woods but Giuliani used to be one of them. I am also thankful for Giuliani because it was his mayorship that allowed Mike Bloomberg to become mayor. NYC has now had two excellent mayors in a row.

I don't see McCain as much of a contender in the primaries- too many hardcore conservatives remember McCain's flipflopping on tax cuts and his opposition to free speech to ever support him. Romney has piles of personal wealth and has been the most successful at fund-raising thus far. I think that's going to make him a threat.

Personally, I'm still hoping for a darkhorse candidate that I can actually get excited about to come forward

The one thing McCain has over Giuliani is his seemingly 'superior' character and moral record, both of which would cause moral conservatives to vote for the former, not the latter. McCain may have been married twice but the second marriage proved a success and he sports a huge family to boot (let us not forget the adopted daughter he got from an orphanage founded by Mother Teresa). McCain is also a Vietnam veteran and POW who never caved in to torture no matter how tightly Charlie turned the screws. Giuliani on the other hand has been married no less than three times and his previous marriage supposedly crumbled over his infidelities with his current wife (then mistress) Judith Nathan. Rudy does however have his well documented and widely acknowledged performance and leadership during and after the 9/11 attacks, factors which nearly granted him a laurel wreath and triumph by NYers and non-NYers alike. Anyway should morality prove to be an issue serial marriage and infidelity will not go over well with certain groups within the Republican party. Furthermore McCain is pro-life and Giuliani is pro-choice which is a huge issue to Republicans in general.

Romney may have a massive warchest at his disposal but he has little in the way of brand name recognition, something Giuliani and McCain have in spades. Let us not forget the vast personal fortune Forbes had at his disposal when he ran in previous elections.

A darkhorse candidate sounds wonderful but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Xiahou]

Romney may have a massive warchest at his disposal but he has little in the way of brand name recognition, something Giuliani and McCain have in spades. Let us not forget the vast personal fortune Forbes had at his disposal when he ran in previous elections.

Read this to see what I mean:
Mitt's Media Blast

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's decision to begin his television advertising campaign in a series of early primary states today signals a new phase in the run for the Republican presidential nomination.
.....
The second reason for Romney early ad blitz is simple: because he can. Romney has proven an able fundraiser -- collecting more than $6 million on a single day last month. He will have more than enough financial resources to build his name identification in early states.

I know I mentioned his personal wealth, but I didn't mean to over-emphasize it. AFAIK, Romney is the best Republican fund raiser of any of the major hopefuls and he's using that money.