softwareNerd Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 (edited) It is interesting that Guliani has made the list of most admirable and also the list of most despicable. With the word "most" in the titles, I do not think he should be in either list. I do consider him pretty despicable though. Edited October 2, 2005 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Why is he despicable? Given the list of possible '08 candidates, he's my first choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 For starters, as I said above, I would not call him most despicable. Like many people, he is a mixed bag. On the one hand he appeared to be a good operational, hands-on manager after 9/11. On the other, he made his reputation and career by persecuting businessmen. (His supposed success at cleaning up NYC streets was a later development.) Many fascists are also 'men of action' and could probably clean up streets pretty well too. So, those things alone do not qualify a person as good in my mind. I suggest you read Daniel Fischel's book "Payback" to get full details of Guliani's role in the Milken trial. I have forgotten the details, but I remember the personal summary I made of his character. I would vote for almost any candidate rather than Guliani. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Maybe I'll read it when I'm not so swamped with school and work. For now, though, I'd just like to know how he persecuted businessmen. I'm not saying you're wrong...I've just never heard anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Just read the first 15 pages of pages of Chapter 4. titled "Giuliani's Reign of Terror". Meanwhile, the web should be able to provide some info, like this link that Google presented. [Giuliani] ordered the arrest of Timothy L. Tabor.... Tabor was arrested at night at home to make it impossible for him to arrange bail. When Tabor refused to cooperate, he was forced to spend the night in jail. The following day, Richard Wington...was arrested at his office, handcuffed, and led away in tears before waiting television cameras. Also... Robert M. Freeman ... was arrested and handcuffed on the trading floor of Goldman Sachs. As for who the businessmen were, the most famous one was Michael Milken. Giuliani used RICO (which was meant to prosecute the mob) to go after Wall Street businessmen. Imagine what a pragmatic person like that could do with the so-called Patriot Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 He is a big-government republican, which is a pretty unpleasant combination in my opinion. What is there too like? I think lots of politicians are much worse, but that doesn't say a whole lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liriodendron Tulipifera Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I wasn't aware of the facts above. Basically, I admired his response to 9/11, his principle in not taking money from his enemies and identifying the Saudis as what they are (our enemies), and his mechanisms for dealing with homeless people in NYC (what he termed in a speech as "tough love"). Although he might have faulty premises with regard to the business stuff, I bet he's the type of person that might realize it if it was pointed out to him. He seems like an honest and no-nonsense kind of guy, which is why I like him. Can anyone clarify why the businessmen were arrested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 The cases could basically be summed up as "insider trading". Pretty much what sent Martha Stewart to jail. (I known that was not the legal charge in Stewart's, merely the "popular charge".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Granted insider trading laws are crap, but since most politicians (Republicans included) support such laws, I don't see why he's any worse than the rest of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I didn't say he was bad because he prosecuted people for insider trading. I was simply replying to the question posed by a tree . It's my fault though, I should have preempted this interpretation. I'm not going to give great detail to justify my opinion here. When you get a chance, get that book and judge for yourself. However, it's only fair, to state my summarized opinion: he is an unprincipled, pragmatic populist whom I would fear in a position of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liriodendron Tulipifera Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 it's only fair, to state my summarized opinion: he is an unprincipled, pragmatic populist whom I would fear in a position of power. Wow, I'll have to think twice before I vote for him over Hillary in 2008. LOL. Or rather, COL (crying out loud). Why do we have these types of people for candidates as president! Aaaargh! (I've been wanting to use that emoticon for a loooooong time.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Neal Boortz, who usually favors Republicans, made an interesting point today. Although he believes, as do I, that the Republicans are the lesser of two evils, he also believes that they betrayed the people who voted them into office by increasing the size of the government, rather than diminishing it. Because of this, he says they should be voted out of office as punishment. His reasoning is that, even though the Democrats are worse, it might be better in the long-term to have them in office, because the Republicans will eventually lose power to the Democrats and it's better to sooner rather than later, so that the damage that the Democrats do will be fixable. He believes that it's better to have the Democrats take over while we haven't quite hit rock bottom, than it is to have them take over when we're hovering just above rock bottom. That makes an interesting argument for voting for Hillary over Giuliani...but I just don't think I could bring myself to actually do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liriodendron Tulipifera Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Dumbocrats: generally verbally support the right to determine what to do with one's own body Republicans: generally verbally support the right to one's own money and property Both parties: failing miserably to support either of their said agendas Again, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 While the Republicans may fail to protect property rights, they don't violate them as blatantly as the Democrats. And Giuliani is pro-choice, so you don't have to worry about him falling in with the abortocentrist crowd. Here's the way I see it. There are three areas to look at when deciding who to vote for: social policy, economic policy, foreign policy. Democrats get 1 of 3 partially right and the other 2 blatantly wrong. Republicans get 2 of 3 partially right and the other blatantly wrong. Hence, I will probably always vote Republican, except under extraordinary circumstances. Besides, I believe socialism to be a much larger threat than religious conservatism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 (edited) As a Republican president with a Republican congress, RG would better chance of moving us toward some form of government healthcare than Hillary would. He would probably go for some type of "pragmatic" option that supposedly protected business while protecting consumers against the "excesses" of a private system. If the choice is between these two in 2008, and I thought the Republicans would keep Congress, I would vote for Hillary. Here's an offer: used copies of the book I referenced above sell for $2 - $5 on Amazon. If someone here wants to read the chapter I mentioned and scan enough of the rest to get the correct context and then post about it in this thread, you could get the book free. PM me before the end of this week for more details. (Updated: It's two weeks an no PMs, so I'm withdrawing that offer.) Edited October 17, 2005 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted April 22, 2007 Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 (edited) Rudy Giuliani has recently praised the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on intact dialation and extraction. According to the linked article, this was not always his position. I hope that he does not move right on other social issues. Edited April 22, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2007 Polls show that a large percentage (about 70%) of American voters are against partial-birth abortions. (I suspect that they believe that such abortions are done near birth, but that's a separate issue.) My guess is that a Republican might be able to win the primary if he is in favor of early abortions, or abortions in some types of situations; however, I doubt he can win the primary if he is in favor of late-term abortions. In public perception, "partial birth abortion" has been skillfully positioned as being extremely late-term abortion. Fighting a perception like that is an uphill battle that one would not expect a politician to take on -- he just wants to win the election. Guiliani himself may well be against "partial birth abortions", even though he supports early-term abortions. Given that some Objectivists on this board think that extremely late term abortions are wrong, it's reasonable to assume that someone like Guliani might think that way too, and is not actually pandering for votes. His promise to appoint "constructionists" to the SCOTUS was suspected of being the equivalent of saying he will appoint a justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade. After the special opinion that Thomas and Scalia added on to the majority opinion in the recent case (saying they diagree with Roe v. Wade), the implication has been further clarified. I suspect he'll leave it at that, saying he'll appoint judges to decide the matter based on the constitution, implying that his personal views, even if he's in favor of Roe v. Wade are not relevant. Do you know if he has said anything recently that is more specific about early-term abortion or Roe v. Wade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 An update to the above: Guliani has come out in support of a woman's right to choose. (His hand was forced, because it was revealed that he'd contributed to "Planned Parenthood".) He continues to say that he thinks abortion is wrong (i.e. moral stance), but insists that a woman should have the right to choose (i.e. legal stance). To the latter, he adds that it would be fine with him if the SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. However, if one listens carefully, one finds that the positive he sees if it were overturned is not that there will be fewer abortions, but that states will be able to get on with making clearer laws. [This is my paraphrase from TV, so I don't have a reference.] He also added another twist to his earlier promise of appointing "constructionist" judges, by saying that he thinks a "constructionist" might well say that Roe v. Wade is too much of precedent to overturn. In summary, he's stepping as far away from the "anti-choicers" as possible, leaving only a thin shred of "I think it's wrong" while declaring that it is also wrong for him to impose his view on others. If he can pull off a GOP nomination with views like that, it ought to be a huge blow to the anti-choice lobby. Whether or not he then wins the Presidency, the message to future GOP primary candidates will be clear: abortion is not the critical litmus test they think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimpy Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 Further regarding his abortion stance, Giuliani supported the recent SCOTUS decision about "partial-birth abortion." I'm not sure how much he even knew about it, but assuming that he had the resources to fully understand the procedure and its benefits, I think he chickened out. If he truly does believe that a woman should have the right to choose, then he wouldn't support this decision. I also think, though, that if he would have been against the decision, that might have been a bit too much for conservatives. So alas, he chickened out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 For those interested, the following question and answer was posted on Leonard Peikoff's website: "Q: Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy? A: All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long." I hope that the reaction to this statement by Peikoff will not be as bitter as the last! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) ...softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals...Surely this must be a typo on the web-site. Shouldn't it say that his softened stance on things like abortion will hardly convince liberals but will alienate conservatives? Edited May 15, 2007 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Surely this must be a typo on the web-site. Shouldn't it say that his softened stance on things like abortion will hardly convince liberals but will alienate conservatives? I do not think that was a typographical error. With regards to abortion, Rudy Giuliani generally had the support of socially liberal Republicans and independents before beginning his Presidential campaigns. However, he seems to be modifying his stances slightly (although still remaining pretty socially liberal in my opinion) possibly in an attempt to win conservative support during the Republican primary. Thus, socially liberal Republicans who are presently supporting Giuliani in the primary may feel alienated and socially conservative Republicans, who are presently vehemently opposed to Rudy, will hardly be convinced. I am presently uncertain how Rudy Giuliani's views on Iraq and immigration have changed over the past year or two, if they have at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Okay, DW, I get you. I think I interpreted the word "softened" differently from what was meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 (edited) For those interested, the following question and answer was posted on Leonard Peikoff's website: "Q: Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy? A: All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long." I hope that the reaction to this statement by Peikoff will not be as bitter as the last! My reaction is the same. It's a ridiculous proposition to judge an individual candidate based on the religious affiliation of a majority of his party members. As for his stances on abortion and Iraq...they haven't gotten soft at all. He's the closest, of all the candidates, to being right on those issues. I'm not familiar with his stance on immigration. Edited May 17, 2007 by Moose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted May 20, 2007 Report Share Posted May 20, 2007 (edited) Its a ridiculous proposition to judge an individual candidate based on the religious affiliation of a majority of his party members. It is still crucial to know to what extent electing Rudy Giuliani as President will empower the religious cornerstone of the Republican Party. Thusfar, I perceive that he will value his secular principles over his loyalty to his party. He is still my favorite candidate. I'm not familiar with his stance on immigration. Here are brief featuring some brief comments by Rudy on immigration. Evidently, he is very pro-immigration. This coincides with his stance on being extraordinarily pro-free trade. In other news, here is a video of Rudy Giuliani addressing the Hoover Institution (a think tank on the campus of Stanford University; where Thomas Sowell is affiliated) extolling market-based healthcare reform. Lastly, I found this humorous commercial on Rudy's stance against graffiti to be amusing. Edited May 20, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.