Rusty DePass sent in an op-ed submission recently explaining why he’s a Giuliani supporter, and why he thinks Rudy can win. We did not choose it to run in our limited op-ed space, as any such unabashed advocacy piece raises questions of failure to all the other campaigns. But I thought it was interesting, and I may use it as a launching pad for a column (right now, the competitors in my mind for a Sunday column are this, the topic of Rudy’s appeal in S.C.; a piece on single-payer taking off on the meeting we had with advocates earlier this week; and something on the Romney-as-JFK speech today).
In the meantime, I share it with you for your edification (and yes, if any key supporters for other candidates have pieces that I find equally interesting, I’m open to posting them here). Those of you who know Mr. DePass will agree with me that this is classic Rusty:
Why Rudy?
The core support for Rudy Giuliani is truly amazing. It may be hard for some to believe, but I am convinced this guy is for real! I think 2008 promises to be a genuinely unique election year, and Giuliani might just pull this thing off, even in South Carolina.
Most of us, of course, particularly in South Carolina, never gave a damn about New
Yorkers, but somehow the attacks of September 11, 2001, made those people Americans again—even the ones who weren’t Americans—and the attack on this country was, and still is, unthinkable. Giuliani’s leadership in its aftermath, as we all know and observed, was stellar.New York City, of course, is the ungovernable city, and for eight years Giuliani ran it—not perfectly, but well, the way it had never been run before—and in many ways turned it around after decades of gross mismanagement. Frederick Siegel’s The Prince of the City is a critical but generally favorable assessment of Giuliani’s effort in getting a handle on how to govern a very difficult city. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about this incredible man.
When I decided to support Giuliani, I had to confess that I disagree with the guy on a number of issues, and they are important, though mainly social. But when I first became interested in politics, there wasn’t any such thing as “social issues.” Abortion was wrong and homosexuals weren’t trying to marry each other then. The issues were government efficiency, economics, excessive taxation, a strong defense, and governmental interference in our lives and businesses.
Our society has deteriorated a lot since then and unfortunately social issues have become the stock and trade of conservative candidates’ campaigns. Outraged citizens demanded it. I believe in freedom of choice because I believe in freedom, but I don’t believe the government has an obligation to endorse the choices you make.
I have a sneaking suspicion that 2008 is going to be the year when Republicans tire of this fascination with social issues and make their choice on other leadership qualities and policy positions. I don’t think we’re going to change our beliefs; we’re simply going to change our focus.
We need to get away from the rigid, moralistic approach to Republican campaigns and get back to basics, and this guy Giuliani has got the basics down. Not only is he a crime-fighting, Mafia busting prosecutor, he is a superb manager and leader, and on budget and taxation matters, he is as sound as they come. Moreover, he alone among the candidates for 2008, has a grasp of and commitment to the War on Terror. He knows why we are in it and why we must win it.
Frankly I’m a little weary of this “family values” thing. I’m not opposed to what is meant by “family values,” but there’s an “I’m better than you” quality in that approach that makes me uncomfortable.
Just as Jimmy Carter ruined the term “born-again Christian” for me, all the presidents since Reagan have abused “God bless America.” “Family values” needs a rest, too.
When you look at abortion, we really haven’t done so well. We can talk about opposing abortion all we want, but the facts are these: A conservative Republican president appointed the Supreme Court justice who wrote the Roe v.Wade opinion and since then we have had three conservative Republican presidents who have been staunchly “pro-life,” and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. So I would aver presidents don’t have a whole lot of influence in this particular matter. Courts do.
And while we are speaking of courts, Giuliani has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices like Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. Friends, he is telling us something. He’s on our side. A few more like those and the social issues will take care of themselves.
It is interesting that all the major Republican candidates but one have been divorced while all the Democrats are happily married the first time—like the Clintons. Whether your marriage is a sham or the picture perfect relationship, ultimately the issue of presidential leadership ability transcends family situations. Let’s not forget that Ronald Reagan was divorced and estranged from his children.
All of the Republican candidates are preferable to any of the Democrats, but we need a candidate who can win. Again, Giuliani seems to be the best bet. I sure would hate to watch Rodham and Gomorrah being inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and think to myself, “Well, at least we nominated the most ideologically pure candidate.”
Related Posts
So Bill Clinton’s multiple infidelities were not a problem for Republicans? Is that the story now? That’s why we should give Rudy a pass on his personal foibles and his using taxpayer money to shuttle around his girlfriend?
As Joe Biden said, everything Rudy says consists of a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
Of all the viable candidates out there, he is at the bottom of my list.
Moreover, he alone among the candidates for 2008, has a grasp of and commitment to the War on Terror. He knows why we are in it and why we must win it.
-Rusty
I could write a book on how ridiculous this diatribe is but let’s just look at this one comment. Rudy failed miserably in the lead-up to 9-11. He choose to locate the emergency command center in WTC 7. That decision was not based on any sound reasoning but was rather entirely a political ploy. Rudy also failed to provide fire fighters with the latest equipment, especially radios. These two horrible decisions probably cost many lives.
As for this “has a grasp of” claim that’s nothing but the same old worn-out, discredited mantra from the conservative right that bears no resemblance to reality. We’re in Iraq now chasing phantoms while Osama runs free in Pakistan and the Taliban re-build their network in Afghanistan. Rudy has supported the failed mission in Iraq and like the blown security decisions he made in NY this too is costing American lives and imperiling our security.
No Rusty, Rudy doesn’t get it. Rudy goes along with the conservative fear-mongering that continues to cost American lives, reduce our security and waste taxpayers money. We’ve seen the results of the fear-mongering tactics of the Bush administration for 7+ long years. That’s 7+ years too long.
And just as an aside, why do Republicans all of a sudden find these “family values” issues so unimportant? That certainly wasn’t the case in the 1990s. Seems like a partisan about-face to me.
Give me five minutes with RUSTY or any other Republican taxpayer and I’ll have them calling for Giuliani’s arrest.
The ONLY reason anyone supports Rudy is because they are IGNORANT of the facts and only like Rudy b/c our hyper-corrupt media (whom Rudy “coincidentally” gave over 7 billion NYC taxdollars to via “economic development”–which he didn’t give to any biz who couldn’t help him become prez)HAS COVERED UP THOUSANDS OF GIULIANI SCANDALS.
On ANY topic, I can turn any GOPer against this flip flopping criminal.
From his 75% pay raise for the Democratic City Council (followed by a 25% pay raise from Rudy Jr. Bloomberg) while stiffing cops and firemen with less than 15% (!!!) to Rudy creating Hillary and putting her into the Senate twice b/c he broke his promise to stop her,voters don’t know even 1% of career-ending Rudy scandals.
The man belongs in PRISON for hundreds of convictions in court. (Even the Supreme Court found him guilty of violating the US Constitution—which is LAW for those in the media who didn’t realize Rudy was a convicted LAWBREAKER.)
Even his ALLIES (the 9/11 Commission) essentially admit Rudy killed most of the 3,000 victims, via incompetent anti-plans for fighting skyscraper fires (which they say is what caused the collapses and killed most people)and his incompetency on every level. (Their report just LIES like media, and leaves out the name “Giuliani” as if he wasn’t the boss! It’s like when they report “the city” was fined in court. No. The “City” has never been found guilty in court. The trees, citizens, parks, buildings, etc, did nothing wrong. They use “CITY” to substitute for NAMING NAMES of the crooks in City Hall like Rudy and BLoomberg.
Despicable.
Want many more scandals on the most corrupt pol in US history? (Rudy.)
GiulianiScandals.blogspot.com
Rusty is dead on..I like Huck a lot, but winning in Nov is what it is all about. The key to winning is independents who are full up with right wing religious talk..even tho I am one of those right wing religious types..they ain’t goin to vote for one..and, bottom line, we lose..Rudy is probably our only option for winning
Just as I thought, Brad, only a few whackos are into your blog, but I do think we should set a higher standard than hiding behind names such as “cxb” and “bud.” I wouldn’t dignify any of their charming vitriol by responding. At least Doug Ross had the courage to sign his name, but I would caution him against quoting Joe Biden. Anything he said that was of value may have been plagiarized.
Typical neo-con response. Never, ever, ever under any circumstances address the facts from someone from the left. Simply talk about how someone is a whacko or a coward (by not signing their name) or dredging up some long-discredited “liberal” scandal. Somehow you folks on the right think you’re so clever imitating ad-nauseum all the Rush Limbaugh spin tactics. Just show me how my facts about Rudy are incorrect Rusty. Otherwise just keep your insults to yourself.
Rusty makes this interesting comment:
“… when I first became interested in politics, there wasn’t any such thing as “social issues.” ”
-Rusty DePass
When was that, 1492? We’ve always had “social issues” in this country. In the 1950 and 60s it was civil rights. In the 1920s it was immigration (sound familiar). In the early 1900s we had women’s suffrage. The 1910s saw the temperance movement. In the 1930s we reversed that by repealing prohibition. In the 1820s-1860s there was slavery. How can we take some seriously who throws out such ridiculous statements then accuses those of us who actually present facts as being wackos.
art movement
all kinds of art movement.