Tea Time for Rudy: A Fiscal Record the Tea Party Could Admire
Editor’s note: The author served as a speechwriter for Mayor Giuliani in 2000-2001 and on his presidential campaign in 2007-2008.
Why is Mitt Romney running as a fiscal conservative in 2011 when he tried so hard to position himself as a social conservative last time around? Three words: The Tea Party.
Poll after poll after poll reveal the economy and jobs are the top concerns of American voters. And 74% of Americans think the government is wasting their money.
As we’ve been documenting on PJTV for the past two years, President Obama’s policies and Tea Party activists are the driving forces behind America’s passionate debate about taxation, spending and the proper role of government.
Now William Kristol reports that two sources tell him former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will run for president again. This time around, because of the Tea Party, there’s reason to think he could be a contender.
Before you can say “Florida,” Kristol addresses anybody who’s too quick to write off a second Giuliani candidacy:
Isn’t his abysmal 2008 campaign a disqualifier? Rudy’s answer: Consider the New York parallel. Rudy lost to David Dinkins in 1989, making several unforced errors and running without a focused message. In 1993, as the streets of New York plunged into crisis, Rudy ran a disciplined campaign pledging to turn the city around. He won, and in a disciplined first term, he governed successfully.
Tea Party activists don’t have to trust Kristol about Rudy’s fiscal track record. They don’t even have to trust me, a guy who was honored to work on his team.
The Tea Party can go to a real fiscal conservative. They can go to their own guy whom they put in the Senate. Pat Toomey offered this analysis of Rudy’s fiscal record in 2007:
In New York City, Rudy Giuliani governed a locality dominated by liberal Democrats; public-sector labor unions; social-welfare activists; and a powerful local news media actively hostile to a limited-government philosophy.
Sound familiar?
In the face of such tremendous headwind, Giuliani’s economic accomplishments are remarkable.
Giuliani inherited a city crippled by high taxes, ballooning deficits, and stalled job growth. Despite these obstacles, Mayor Giuliani wasted no time in calling for $1 billion in tax cuts over the next four years, slashing city jobs, and cutting city-funded spending in real terms by more than $340 million. Over the rest of his eight years at Gotham’s helm, Giuliani reduced a slew of other taxes and kept spending at an all-time low.
And what did Toomey think of the mayor’s potential as President Giuliani?
[...] one cannot help but conclude that if Giuliani could accomplish the pro-growth record he did in the hostile environment of New York City, the potential for him to accomplish even more amid the more politically balanced federal government is great.
Giuliani wasn’t much of a campaigner last time around. I think the Tea Party will go with Perry big time if he runs… and it looks like he will.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576373712869124184.html?mod=e2tw
Consider that Perry’s done what he has done in conservative Texas; Giuliani’s accomplishments were in ultra-blue NYC. Much tougher job, don’t you think. It’s one thing to be able to talk the talk, another to be able to get things done, and Giuliani’s got a proven ability to do just that. Plus, he’d stomp Obama at the polls.
One big worry about Perry. We have had 2 presidents from TX, LBJ and Bush 2, not a very good recommendation. I love Tx as a state, but worry about their ability to produce good presidents. I think it is because natural Tx confidence can turn to hubris.
Let’s see.
Giuliani is pro-abortion, his statements on immigration leads people to believe that he would be pro-amnesty and he isn’t a strong supporter of second amendment rights.
Yep, sounds like a real winner in fly-over country. /sarcasm off
Pro-Abortion? Can you seriously say there are Republicans out there who seek to increase the number of abortions performed? Isn’t reducing the number of abortions performed in this country the goal?
Mayor Giuliani actually reduced the number of abortions performed in NYC by 16.8% and increased the number of adoptions by 66%. He also was able to double the amount of child support collected, from $209 million in 1994 to $447 million in 2001.
And while the lives of children were improved by Mayor Giuliani, when they became grown ups, there was a better chance that they would find a job … as Rudy also cut NYC unemployment from 10.4% to 5%.
So if abortion is the one and only issue you vote on, then I understand why Giuliani might not match up with you (even if you share his goal of fewer abortions but disagree with his personal beliefs). But if you take a look at what he accomplished – in a City where Dems outnumber Republican 5 to 1 – then perhaps you can see the potential for what he can do for America.
America at large looks nothing like New York City, politically or in sentiment.
Why would you think that a candidate that appeals to their sensibilities would ring true with the inhabitants of the hinterlands?
Giuliani’s stance on abortion is not the only reason I would not vote for him, it’s a package deal, see also his stances on immigration and on the second amendment.
I’m interested in hearing what your position is on immigration and how cities and states are supposed to handle the problem when the federal government fails to do its job.
And as far an the Second Amendment goes, Rudy earned the applause of the NRA National Meeting in Washington, DC with a message about protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
Some of the people in the crowd were probably holding a grudge with him over a position he held in the 90s … but there were 1,946 people killed in NYC in 1993. Rudy reduced that 66% by 2001. The number of shootings went down 77%.
Mayor Giuliani believed the people of New York City had no rights if they couldn’t exercise the simple right of walking down the street without being killed or attacked. (Note: he reduced Rape by 45%, Robbery by 67%, Aggravated Assault by 39% and vehicle theft by 73%).
I think the number of lives Mayor Giuliani saved and the number of families that are intact because of reduced crime in NYC is a message that might resonate with any voter who ever worried about his own safety or that of his family and friends.
So, let me know your solution to our nation’s immigration woes and whose immigration policy do you like?
“I’m interested in hearing what your position is on immigration is and how cities and states are supposed to handle the problem when the federal government fails to do its job. ”
The answer to that would be “like Arizona” (pass own law) and not like the blue castle “sanctuary cities”.
Very timely news:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alabama-immigration-20110610,0,4204688.story
“Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signs a bill that, among other things, bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in or attending college; prohibits them from applying for or soliciting work; and makes it illegal to rent them property…”
“Rudy earned the applause of the NRA National Meeting in Washington, DC with a message about protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.”
A> The NRA has been known to go squishy on the 2nd, believe it or not. And this is one example of this.
B> If he is so big on protecting the 2A rights of law abiding citizens, then why hasn’t he promoted Shall Issue CCW in New York? It is that “bear” part of keep and bear arms thing.
C> The problem with the “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” thing is that it is double talk about stomping on 2A rights. No matter what the .gov does, criminals will get guns on the black market. Measures that “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” serve only to put up barriers to the law abiding. Nope, I don’t buy it. Real 2A proponents don’t use such language.
No, the goal is to eliminate abortion. Reduction is a consolation prize.
It’s not going to happen by legislation so why hand the Democrats the election by emphasizing this in a Republican candidate? And I agree with Owen Brennan above: no one is pro-abortion and when that term is used it automatically signals that an inflexible, socially conservative candidate is speaking from a religion-based perspective. Why not add a ban on gay rights and a law that forces prayer in school to the platform? Then we can be done with it and watch the country swirl down the drain economically under control of the socialist democrats.
Not that worried about his stance on abortion. The Tea Party is far more worried about fiscal responsibility, where Guilani is strong. I am a bit worried about his positions on immigration and guns though, and those are Tea Party concerns.
I’m pro 2A rights, pro Arizona on their Immigration policy.. and I think Rudy Giuliani would make a great President. He understands Limited Gov’t, Spending Restraint and Fiscal Responsibility. He understands the Muslim Problem and how to articulate a strong and respected Foreign Policy. He’s the best one on Law and Order, he fearlessly took on the Mob. He’s a cool head in a Crises. He could accomplish more with the Immigration Problem than any President ever has. I admit he needs to articulate a clear and stronger message in this area. I like his record on Abortion… he reduced the number performed without having the Gov’t intrude into that difficult Choice. There’s no perfect package candidate out there when one considers all the various issues. In my opinion, he comes closer than anyone else. The time may be right for Rudy to run.
His views play well in NY, where social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are the norm. However, I agree, those same liberal views will shoot him down nationally. And, I am not sure, given the current field, if his inter/national (or lack thereof) leadership experience has the breadth and depth to make him a serious contender.
He was great during 9/11, and thank God for that. I think he should stay quit, while he is ahead.
Agreed
I can’t see the Tea Party lining up behind a RINO – and of all the things Giuliani is – that is the fact.
Come on – even a moderate Democrat (are there any left?) would look like a conservative with NYC as the backdrop. Giuliani is little different from any moderate Democrat (really! Do they still exist other than at approaching elections?).
In other words – he’s a RINO – and we don’t need no stinkin RINOs!
Sad, but true. He has demonstrated that doesn’t understand the limited government principles that are clearly laid out in the Constitution. He’s yet another big government type from the North East. This Texan, at least, isn’t going to vote for him in the primaries.
That’s fine gb_in_tx, but if he gets the nomination, he can take it to Obama better than anyone else in the field….. and we need someone who can take it to Obama. If there’s one weakness in the Republican field, it is just that. Very few of them project the leadership strength to strongly challenge Obama…. which shouldn’t be all that hard. The only ones who can are Cain, West and Giuliani. Gingrich could have before he blew himself up. Trump could have before he turned himself into a cartoon character. Pawlenty and Santorum don’t have it. Rubio’s too young. Romney’s a RINO and has lived an elitist lifestyle most his life. Daniels and Christie aren’t running. Who else?
The NE, home of anti-federalism, birth place of the so called progressive movement. I’d vote for a grid locked “O” a thousand times before I’d vote for a NE RINO.
No way do we need a “kinder, gentler” socialism. Keep it right out in the open so people can see what it is instead of hiding it behind a mis placed “R”.
I prefer my despotism pure, as Lincoln did, without the base alloy of hypocricy.
The first few sentences of your post were so dumb I just knew there was a misspelling coming. Thanks for not letting me down. To call Rudy a socialist is ignorant, and my favorite thing about the Tea Party is that its NOT full of morally superior rednecks trying to dicate to everyone how they should live. Palin is loved by the Tea Party DESPITE her social conservatism. In fact, her social conservatism is THE main reason why people have reservations in considering her presidential material. Take your war on gays and all your other busybody moral lecturing crap and shove it. Its time for a new way.
I think the main reason why people have reservations about Palin as presidential material is that if she had a fully functional neuron somewhere in that skull of hers, it would perish from loneliness.
Gay marriage and the other cultural Marxist crap is part and parcel of the war against the American family. RINOs do not get that or do not care.
It isn’t about balancing the budget or cutting, that’s a bandaid solution. The problem is fighting the left on all fronts to restore America – and that includes the cultural front as well.
cutting taxes
Of course, you can point to a single example of how she governed as a social conservative — NOT!
You are a liar.
You want one example of Palin’s social conservatism (beyond just ‘talk’)? Duh…How about her allowing her still-in-high-school 17 yr old daughter to bear and then keep her baby!!!! A 17 yr old has no judgement…(one small example was her boyfriend choice.) Sarah was the PARENT here…not an equally unaware high school girlfriend.
Johnny Drama #5A nailed it: It’s Sarah’s EXTREME social conservatism that scares us STRONG fiscal conservatives!
You are correct, in that I meant to type “Federalists”, not “Anti-Federalists” Otherwise I stick by my post in it’s entirety and can tell by your confusing reply that you’ve never read any of my other posts here concerning the SoCons. I think a case can be made that the first “Progressive” in the white house was Teddy Rosevelt of New York, FDR (also from the area I pointed out) was a borderline communist.
Did G do anything to cut the size of government in NYC? Did he do anything to undo the anti-2nd amendment laws in NYC? Did he rigourously pursue a SoCon agenda in NYC? Answer these questions honestly and you will understand what I really posted instead of what you apparently thought I posted.
A “Fiscal Record the Tea Baggers” can be proud of? I am simply amazed at how so many people robotically buy into all of this right wing nonsense. Cut taxes on people who have lots of money to save the economy? Is that the crazy general premise? Real unemployment is something like 16%. How is “cutting government spending” and “cutting taxes” going to solve anything? What’s needed is more stimulus and more education spending so that we can have…take a breath….EDUCATED CHILDREN. How can we guarantee a vibrant future when we have uneducated children? How can we fuel job growth when our kids are illiterate? How is allowing some white multi-millionaire another tax break going to fund education? I don’t know why I keep punishing myself with this stupid web site.
perhaps the “…for dummies” franchise of books has an economics edition
you would benefit greatly
otherwise– troll somewhere else– maybe yahoo
very funny…..I’ve seen the term “troll” used before, and assume it has something to do with Charlie Sheen, but do not understand the lame use of the word here. Look, to jump start the economy it’s important that resources (i.e. MONEY) get to the right hands. That’s why cutting taxes on multi-billionaires like the Koch brothers only serves to focus the money in the hands of a few people/corporations. The rest of us lose out, BECAUSE THE MONEY IS HELD BY A FEW! Mass labor is used to advance the means of production to enrich a few and you want to allow the few to keep it all? Really? And you want TO FIRE TEACHERS because you won’t take from the few who are traveling the world in private jets? And I’m a “troll”?
“And you want TO FIRE TEACHERS because you won’t take from the few who are traveling the world in private jets? And I’m a “troll”?”
And those would be…
Soros?
Pelosi?
Bono?
…?
you dont start economies– you unleash them
according to obama multi-billionaires make $250k
mass labor (i suppose you mean unions) creates unemployment in the first place
and is a protected monopoly in the second
firing teachers (no idea where that came from) is the very result of the failure of monopoly– rewarding merit and permitting competition would go far, though, to “fixing” our failed education system
“take from the few”—coercion is the path to tyranny
it’s important that resources (i.e. MONEY) get to the right hands.
And the socialists are just the people to *decide* who has the ‘right’ hands…
Never mind that this hasn’t worked out too well historically.
Lovely-”The money” is already in the right hands. The hands of the people who know how to make more of it. And in doing so, they stimulate the economy by creating goods and services that people desire and will buy, and that creates jobs, for which people are paid money, which they use to buy desired goods and services and, oh yeah, pay taxes. And so forth.
Think of the economy as a snowball that rolls down a snow covered hill. As it picks up more snow, it gets bigger and bigger. If there’s no snow, it gets smaller and smaller and eventually peters out.
The recent government stimuli went to connected companies who did things like re-pave a lot of roads (a marginal benefit, as it did not produce a product) and bailout states that have been financially irresponsible. It did this by borrowing money at usurious rates. Try maxing out your credit cards and see how difficult it is to get by.
Are you seriously suggesting that with the dismal position our public education system is in, after the kabillions of dollars dumped down that rat hole, we dump more? Just look at California and D.C. for two fine examples of lots of money per student spent with some of the lowest test scores in the nation.
More money is not the answer to education. Less union, less indoctrination, more reading, riting, rithmetic is the answer. And we don’t need more money to teach that.
And how many jobs have you seen created by poor people?
THE MONEY HASN’T BEEN SPENT CORRECTLY!!! More money needs to be spent on self-esteem and image building programs; programs that allow children (particularly children from depressed areas) to recognize their talent, that they’re not stupid, worth something, and can do well. They also need to know that the government is on THEIR SIDE, that they won’t grow up into poverty, that college will be available, and that jobs will be provided. This will give them something called “HOPE”, maybe you’ve heard the term before?
THE MONEY HASN’T BEEN SPENT CORRECTLY!!! /shouting
This is a new version of “REAL communism has never been tried!”
Spoken like someone who is part of the problem. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with every point you made.
Typical liberal/progressive answer to whatever is the problem at hand – throw more money at it.
Get a clue – we’ve thrown billions of money at this problem and its gotten WORSE not BETTER. Only governments throw more money into a money pit and ask for more money to throw into the pit. Stupid bureaucrats think they can solve the problems they’ve created if only we’d give them more of our money!
We may as well declare defeat and turn the schools into day care centers – for all practical purposes that is the function of the greater part of them. The answer is charter schools and voucher programs – make it the law of the land in all 50 states. Allow the free market to compete for tax dollars and students and lets see who comes out on top.
Trouble is liberals/progressives such as yourself are afraid of what they’ll find – and won’t much like having been wrong for so long.
Wouldn’t be the first time though – would it?
“THE MONEY HASN’T BEEN SPENT CORRECTLY!”
Wow, ain’t that the truth!!!!!
I was a classroom teacher who left for the private sector world, where outstanding achievement would be recognized. Gov’t Education has zero requirement for teacher excellence. The 15% of outstanding teachers rec’d the same pay & benefits as the 30% pathetic teachers! (Those 30% pathetic teachers wouldn’t have lasted 2 months in the private sector!) The remaining just plain mediocre 55% would have NEVER achieved mgmt status in private industry.
Look at your schools: the 30% pathetic and the 55% mediocre are all still there! Why? Because the teacher unions make firings MUCH too difficult.
How could dumping more money into a system with HORRIFIC teachers improve student performance????
What’s the answer? Better teachers! FAR BETTER TEACHERS!!!!! Right from the start, the universities are rewarding poor performers with education degrees! Have you observed most teachers in the classroom? If they don’t put to sleep, you must be playing Free Cell on your hidden iPad. Does a great teacher have to be an entertainer? You bet! Does every student have to LOVE being in class? Yep.
Place a good teacher evaluator in each school and allow that evaluator to fire for non-excellent performance…and watch those student test scores soar!!!!!
Easy fix!
“More money is not the answer to education. Less union, less indoctrination, more reading, riting, rithmetic is the answer. And we don’t need more money to teach that.”
You nailed it.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the Marine Corps, it’s that you DON’T REINFORCE FAILURE! Pumping more money into education and other programs that have failed or are failing to accomplish what we set out is not the answer. Attacking a problem with more resources does not garauntee success, and most of the time it just magnifies the problem. We don’t have unlimited resources. We don’t have unlimited time. We can’t do the same thing over and over and expect different results. That’s insanity, not a solution.
The education system, if a failure, is due to mis-guided policies. We educate children and then throw them out into the world without a guaranteed job. So many are left behind. And do you know where they end up? In the military, bombing other children. Really great. I suggest that you put aside your realm of thought for a few hours and read something that may give you a different perspective. Maybe something by Cass Sunstein.
…misguided policy…
Progressives have controlled education policy and performance in this country since at least WW-2.
It is their policies that are misguided failures.
The last thing we need to do is to give the addict another fix.
It is long past time for the EduCrats to go “cold turkey” and get real jobs.
Sorry – we do not educate then children, we indoctrinate them. We pulled our child out of the public school system and home school because out of 6.75 hour day half was just touchy, feely, feel good stuff and not educating. I teach at a state research university and the majority of student are not educated after 12 years of public education. They need a lot of remedial work. And this is not new it is just getting worse. It use to be only the poor/minority students were failed by their schools, now it is many many more even in the so called good schools.
Guaranteed job? Where besides a totalitarian communist state are there “guaranteed jobs”? Certainly not in the US currently dominated by Democrat anti-growth policies.
Even broaching the idea of “guaranteed jobs” suggests either a complete lack of economic understanding or a desire for return to those lovely social experiments of the 20th century.
You are completely off the reservation with that comment. We don’t always bomb the kiddies – we shoot them in the face! All kidding aside, I’m glad you admit that education policy has been misguided. However, your garaunteed jobs notion is completely asinine. If you can’t figure out why it is completely infeasible, you lack the intellectual depth to carry on this conversation. By the way, I have read some of Cass Sunstein’s work back in college. Also, the military is not populated by moronic knuckle draggers, nor is it the employer of last resort. Drop your bias and expand your horizons.
You have to admit that Lovely Earth is living proof that our education system is a failure. If he/she/it had a brain he/she/it would know that freedom is the solution, not continued socialism in education (or anywhere else). Or maybe he/she/it isn’t stupid but just a paid democratic operative. Why else would a liberal hang out here?
You seem to be a bit confused. The correct term is Tea Party Member. Teabagging is what YOUR mouth is used for.
“How is ‘cutting government spending’ and ‘cutting taxes’ going to solve anything?”
Ummm, maybe by allowing those who actually create jobs to have the capital to expand their businesses and make more jobs without excessively burdensome regulation? (countdown until someone raises the strawman of “you want no government or regulation”: 3, 2, 1…)
“What’s needed is more stimulus and more education spending so that we can have…take a breath….EDUCATED CHILDREN”
Yes, because study after study has demonstrated a clear correlation in increasing education spending and improving childrens’ education.
Bureaucrats are suffocating us in all respects. Fire 90% of the bureaucrats, and we’ll have more money and fewer problems. You could triple education spending under the current conditions and it would have no effect on academic performance. Of course, we can’t triple education spending, because we’re already overspending, and we’re broke.
A lot of analysis associated with the Tea Party comes to the conclusion that fiscal issues dominate social issues and make the GOP safe for a social moderate; while that might be true in the Northeast it still is not the case nationally.
Also, despite the prevalence of economic/fiscal/Federal control issues during the last election, this is possibly the most pro-life Congress ever, so the Tea Party is obviously conservative when it comes to social issues. There is no way Guiliani can perform well given his personal life and socially liberal views. If he really wanted to contribute to the party then he should have ran in that Special Senate Election in New York last year or even for Governor, but he will not help the Republican cause by running for President.
Guiliani should use the exposure he is getting now to run and unseat Gillibrand in the New York Senate election next year.
Speak for yourself Jordon. None of the social issues are federal issues, none are mentioned in the Constitution despite each and every one of them being a part of society at the time of the framing.
Guliani doesn’t get my vote because he doesn’t support the limited government and individual rights put forth in the Constitution. Exactly the same reason social conservatives won’t get my vote. And Texas is a long way from New York.
Jordan, the single best way to advance socon causes is to cut back government. No NEA to fund Mapplethorpe. No DoE to indoctrinate students. No DOJ to push hate crimes laws on preachers. And on and on.
Sigh! Like many people I both like and admire Giuliani. He’s a tough guy, very smart and not afraid to make the hard decisions. It would be nice to have a Republican presidential candidate who would at least have a chance to carry New York and a couple of other eastern states. He has good common sense and a self-deprecating sense of humor.
The problem with Rudy is that there is no “fire in the belly.” Nobody is going to just hand the nomination to him. He’s going to have to run and run hard if he wants to get anywhere. I believe that social conservatives would back him (despite his abortion stand) if he has a realistic chance of winning AND comes up with a realistic approach to deal with our two biggest problems, debt and unemployment.
If Giuliani could be magically infused with the energy, confidence and guts of a Sarah Palin he would be an unstoppable candidate. Sadly it doesn’t work that way.
While he might do well in the blue enclaves and the North-East, I don’t see him doing well in fly-over country or the South. Not in the primaries, anyway. And the Rs simply can’t win without strong support in fly-over country and the South.
If he were to win the R nomination, I feel that it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Enough heartland voters would stay home that it would guarantee a D (probably Obummer, but it applies just as well to any generic D) victory. And in this day and age, that would be disastrous.
Who cares about Gulianni’s purported money skills? All our problems-including fiscal- stem from the fundamental societal loss of a national moral conscience. The reason they lie, steal our money and property, and spend our grandchldren into debt is that they are immoral.Their God is the atheist state. Their patron saint Saul alinsky didn’t dedicate his book Rules for Radicals to Satan -a book that they were honed on.
They are people who would coldly kill babies outside of the womb, and support the vilest of evils. Why would such people care about taking your money? People who would lie and use a crisis to take your money could care about sound economics -it is easy theft they believe in. People who hate the constitution because it limits them and they seek private civilian armies don’t have a moral base. Their commandment is to do whatever evil works.
Talking sound economics with them is like explaining to a couple of back alley muggers that you have a family to feed. They really don’t care. It’s the very worst the time to put God, family values, and social issue aside, it is time to put them front and center. The moral principle of subsidiarity is all that the GOP needs to run on to beat these mnarxists.
The dirty little secret – I suspect- is that the right is almost as Godless as the liberals, just as immoral on life sexual depravation issues as the left -It just doesn’t dare say so out loud. So they say, let’s just put that (God and morality) thing aside for now while we fight about money.
Such thinking is straight from Hades and no better that Saul Alinsky who at least admits his evil.
Excellent point.
Fundamentally, it’s about the Gramscian cultural rot in our society.
Exploding debt and bigger fed. gov’t are the SYMPTOM, not the root cause of the rot.
A RINO who doesn’t take this problem head on (and I fear Rudy won’t) is not what the US needs at this point.
I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that Rudy would be the Tea Party candidate. He certainly would not be mine, and I am very active in the Tea Party. Would did you talk to about this??? Is this all theory?
Hey there Bob. My point isn’t that Rudy would be the Tea Party Candidate (I think Herman Cain might be the leading candidate for that title right now), but I do think Tea Party activists should take a look at Rudy’s fiscal record in NYC.
Consider our nation’s economic plight and look at Rudy’s record as Mayor:
He cut unemployment in half (from 10.4% to 5%).
He cut or eliminated taxes more than 20 times.
He turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a $2.9 billion surplus.
He reduced the overall tax burden on New Yorkers by 17%.
He reduced the number of people on welfare from 1.1 million (think about that number) to 460,000.
I’m not saying Rudy is the Tea Party Candidate. And you don’t have to trust my numbers. Take a look at what Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth had to say about Rudy.
Tea Party Acivists don’t have to support Rudy (the Ruling Class Republicans will do there best to tell us all what to think). But I think TEa Party Activists should see what’s possible when a true fiscal conservative is in office. I hope the next Republican President has an even better track record than Rudy had as Mayor. And if there’s a better standard we should be using and judging candidates by, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Thanks,
Owen
Well I hope this time around someone schools Rudy’s campaign folks about Duverger’s Law. In 2008, by the time Florida rolled around, there was already a perceived front-runner and contender, McCain and Romney. NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVEN CONTEMPLATE SKIPPING NEW HAMPSHIRE.
And all you social conservatives? You’re the reason the GOP is where it is to begin with. The vast majority of Americans are no more interested in social engineering than they are with that of the left.
Giuliani/Johnson 2012
That’s just plain ignorant. The United States HAS BEEN socially engineered to the left over the last 40 years. Wake up and smell the decay.
Read something on the Frankfurt School. Read Breitbart’s book at least.
I, for one, absolutely will NOT vote for Giuliani in the primaries. He just doesn’t get it regarding the 2nd Amendment, and that is a deal breaker in my book. I don’t care that he turned NYC around and did a decent job post 9/11, he still doesn’t get it. There are other, better candidates in the running or on the radar.
Now, if he happens to be the R candidate in the general election vs Obummer, then I’ll hold my nose and vote for him anyway. It is the “Syphilitic Camel” principle.
As a NYC resident, I saw both the good and bad sides of Giuliani. He believes in a soft social-engineering that led to all manner of nonsense like the war on jaywalking. He CANNOT be trusted on 2nd Amendment issues.
I think he is fit for high public office- someplace where he will be focused and have to produce real results. But I would very much prefer as president a true skeptic of government that puts trust in the people.
Three questions and three answers. How many wives has Rudy had? 3. How many cousins has he married and divorced: 1 How morally unfit to be president of the United States is Rudy Guiliani: 100%
Hell no, not Giuliani.
When I lived in NY, I loved Giuliani. But in one weak campaign after another (Hillary and 2008) I am convinced he does not want office, he just doesn’t want to leave the national stage.
As a former NY’r I could never vote for Rudy. He cut crime by unleashing a pack of trigger happy animals loose on the poor and minorities. These people used a toilet plunger to rape a suspect, puncturing his bowel in the process. The whole precinct heard this and ignored it.(Abner Louima, see also Amadou Diallo)
He will not only disarm everyone except the rich, he will punish anyone who defends themselves, even when the cops can’t get there in time.
His is the mindset that only the authorities can react to crisis, that is why a plane full of NY’rs allowed four punks with boxcutters to take their lives like so many sheep.
If there was a fire, he would prefer you stand and watch your house burn while waiting for the FD, rather than grab a hose and do what you could.
Rudy is the very definition of a statist and a RINO, and as someone who has attended several Tea Party events I can tell you those things are just as important to the movement as fiscal responsiblity.
Palin – Giuliani?
Heads could explode.
Were you working for Giuliani when he was in office and was running around on the tax-payers’s dime, cheating on his wife? If so, what did you think of that? I think it was Ross Perot who said that he would fire anyone who was cheating on their spouse. He said that if their spouse, the one person they were closest to in the whole world, couldn’t trust them, then why should he? Why should we? The term “situation-ethics” comes to mind.