Rudolph Giuliani? What were we talking about?
Selwyn Duke February 26, 2007
Okay, I've had enough. I know the empty-vessel Shill Media struggle for something, anything to talk about, this being the lot of those intellectually and philosophically bankrupt. But Rudolph Giuliani for president? Please. There's more chance I'll simultaneously be made head of NOW and the NAACP and be invited to George Soros' next soiree.
I know a little something about Giuliani. Although my politics, faith, appearance, gun case and, well, most everything about me say otherwise, I was raised in New York City. And one of my last acts before departing the Den of Iniquity for suburbia was to cast a vote for America's Mayor. Don't hold it against me; he was running against David Dinkins, a man who made Forrest Gump look smart.
Unlike the piece I wrote about the now listing U.S.S. Mitt Romney, I'm not herein trying to sound the alarm. Rather, I simply point out that Giuliani is a ship that only floats in New York Harbor. He is far too liberal to get the Republican nomination.
I've never witnessed a more laughable game of collective "Let's pretend" than the media's Giuliani coverage. Even Dick Morris, the erstwhile Clinton propaganda minister who fancies himself the Niccolo Machiavelli of the third millennium, has called Giuliani the man to beat.
He's more like the man who will be beaten — and by more than one candidate, mind you.
The media love to point out how Giuliani is the poll-leader for the Republican nomination, a fact which means absolutely nothing. All many people in middle America know about him is that he didn't pull a Ray Nagin on 9/11 — he stoically shepherded his city through that dark hour — and that he rendered a captivating, earthy speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. And on his list of credits I'll add that after ferociously battling the mafia as a United States Attorney, he followed suit as mayor and cleaned up NYC, reducing crime and improving quality of life.
This is all well and good but, unfortunately, Giuliani only looks palatable when viewed through the narrow prism of these few events. And sometime very soon the average Republican voter will learn something: Liberal NY Republicans are different from liberal NY Democrats. They have an "R" next to their names.
As mayor, Giuliani never missed a chance to march in the "Gay Pride" parade. He actively supported "gay rights" and said he was "proud" of his domestic partnership initiative (a step toward anti-marriage). Most egregiously, he once opined that homosexuality is "good and normal."
Giuliani also favored government funding for abortion and said that the type of infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion" should not be outlawed in NY. And while he now says he is "personally opposed to abortion," he also once asserted, "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]." I guess he thinks his kids should have the right to choose and receive Big Daddy funding.
Giuliani has also been an advocate of abridging Second Amendment rights and, more odious still, showed his end-justifies-the-means lawyer colors, exercising his mayoral power to the end of filing suit against the gun industry. He has supported the type of invidious discrimination known as affirmative action and has opposed school prayer and tuition tax credits. He at one time said he endeavors to resurrect the spirit of Rockefeller Republicanism and that he would consider endorsing Bill Clinton, stating "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Then, he did in fact endorse ultra-liberal NY governor Mario Cuomo in 1994. And, as damnable as anything else, Giuliani upheld policies that make NYC a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Anyway, enough about that. You get the idea.
My point is that Giuliani's golfer son, Andrew, has more of a chance of winning the Masters (he is a phenomenal player) than father does of capturing the Republican nomination. Allow me to lend this some perspective.
The hate-America-first crowd likes to say, perhaps when pondering the political prospects of Lady Macbeth and Brokeback Obama, that no woman or black person could be elected president. And given the nature of these two individuals, it may be lamentable that this is not so. But now let's talk about something unprecedented that actually is impossible.
To the best of my knowledge:
No pro-abortion candidate has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has been in bed with the homosexual lobby has ever won the Republican nomination.
Nobody who has opposed Second Amendment rights has ever won the Republican nomination. And some think a man saddled with all three negatives will do so in 2008?
What I find truly amazing is that this reality escapes Giuliani. What is this man thinking? Does he fancy that the average Republican voter is a Times Echo? Talk about believing your own press clippings.
The only interesting aspect of the Giuliani coverage is why the media would press forward, seemingly oblivious to the man's inviability. The obvious answer is that it's an alluring story, as Giuliani has a marquee name and a scintillating, romantic persona. It's also possible some in the Shill Media wish to secure a Hillary versus Rudy match-up, thereby ensuring that a liberal will take the oath of office in 2009. Then there's the fact that press lunkheads live such an insular existence, surrounded by so many fellow travelers, that they start to view themselves as the true center. They then come to believe they represent a fair cross-section of America. My guess, though, is that the coverage is probably attributable to all of the above.
Anyway, I don't know what Giuliani's presidential "exploratory committee" told him a while back, but I could have provided the truth at a tenth the cost. Mr. Mayor, you'd stand a better chance running as an independent; then you might at least be able to make a respectable showing. But, really, you'd be best off devoting your resources to any PGA Tour ambitions your son may be nursing. You miss left far too much to be a contender.