Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony?

Rudy Giuliani has a huge following across the country as he works to gain the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. Giuliani is running as a Republican and touts his “conservative” views but his major claim for qualification is how he handled the events of 9/11. He uses the events of 9/11 as his credentials to lead America in the war on terror and his views are conservative in that light. However, Giuliani has other views and when we examine the total package one can only draw the conclusion that he is a RINO because he has mostly liberal views. Perhaps this is why he polls so well as liberals are looking for a candidate that well suits their beliefs without forcing them to vote for the hugely polarizing Hillary Rodham.

Giuliani’s credentials with regard to 9/11 are a mixed bag with people saying he responded brilliantly and others saying he was not that great, especially in the aftermath. However one views him with regard to 9/11, that day and its events are not his only defining moment and his lifetime of service paints a different picture than the man who handled 9/11.

Giuliani is pro abortion and this is certainly not a conservative view. He made New York City into a sanctuary city and allowed millions of ILLEGALS to flock there without fear of legal action. One can argue (and he has) that his motives were pure and that they were designed to bring the ILLEGALS out of the shadows and take away their fear of reporting crimes but this position is a liberal one and not one that belongs on a conservative’s resume. The idea that the rule of law should be ignored for political expediency is preposterous. What percentage of the ILLEGALS in New York, or any sanctuary city, actually come out of the shadows or report crime because they are “safe” and how does that compare to the number that live lives unobstructed by silly things like the law but who never come out of the shadows or report crimes?

One of the big items on the Giuliani check list is his stance on the Second Amendment. Rudy has had a transformation with regard to this very important piece of our Constitution. Rudy was all for gun control when he was the mayor of New York City and he pursued gun manufacturers for the crimes that criminals committed with guns. Perhaps those very criminals looked at New York as a sanctuary city for them as well. In any event, the criminals are the problems and the guns are just the tools that they used to commit their crimes. Once has to wonder how many of the ILLEGALS he invited to his city committed the very crimes he wanted to stop.

Rudy Giuliani is not a fan of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms. He made a career out of going after guns and legal gun owners (by taking away their rights) while opening his city to law breakers. These opposing positions are interesting indeed and begs the question; “Was he really tough on crime?” Rudy’s appearance before the NRA certainly could not have allayed any of the fears gun owners have about his past position and his supposed transformation, especially when he did not know the words to the Second Amendment. It would appear as if Rudy has changed his position as a matter of political expediency, despite his claims that he changed his mind after 9/11:

“Sept. 11 casts somewhat of a different light on Second Amendment rights; it maybe highlights the necessity for them more.” My Way News

It seems that a leader would know what the Second Amendment means and that a 9/11 would not be necessary to bring enlightenment with regard to that part of the Constitution. He expects that conservatives and those who believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution, will accept his transformation and new found understanding as some sort of epiphany. I wonder how he would expect people to react if he determined, after 9/11, that the press was too free and that the Constitution did not intend for them to have such freedom in light of their reporting of the incident? How would people react if he decided that there really were no Fourth Amendment rights because he needed to be able to break down doors without probable cause? They would view his new outlook as wrong and while he has suddenly gotten the Second Amendment correct, one needs to ask if he really believes this or if he is saying it as a matter of political expediency.

The Bill of Rights clearly enumerates the rights that are endowed upon us by our Creator and those rights cannot be removed by government. Unlike free health care or welfare, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly expressed by the document and this right, as well as the others, are not subject to the whims of politicians, regardless of party affiliation. If Giuliani is elected as president and has a Democratic majority, will he go along with their efforts to restrict the rights of gun owners? Will he have another 9/11 epiphany that says gun ownership is a bad thing that was never part of our Constitution.

Giuliani wraps up all his qualifications in the blanket of his leadership on 9/11. He justifies his actions and his qualification to lead based on the terrible events of that fateful day. Take away that day and Rudy Giuliani is nothing more than a man whose political ideologies align with the left in America and could easily put him on a ballot with a Capital D after his name.

One must ask, if 9/11 had never happened would Giuliani be a viable candidate and, if so, would it be as a Republican. The answer to that question unravels the mystery because if you take away 9/11 all you have is another (liberal) pony.

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony?”

  1. Steve Dennis says:

    “One must ask, if 9/11 had never happened would Giuliani be a viable candidate and, if so, would it be as a Republican. The answer to that question unravels the mystery because if you take away 9/11 all you have is another (liberal) pony.”

    This is the statement that sums up Rudy to me. While I love his stance when it comes to national security, I disagree with all of his stances on the other issues. If it wasn’t for 9/11 and his leadership in the aftermass he would have no shot, at least as a Republican. But it is his stance on this issue that many Americans connect with, and on this issue alone I think he would make a better president than any of the Democrats.

  2. Big Dog says:

    There is no doubt he would be a better candidate than any of the Democrats and he would be liked by a lot of them because he holds many of their views. The question is, will he make a better president than some of the other Republicans?

  3. Rosemary says:

    The answer to that is no. Duncan Hunter is much better. I wonder why no one is talking about the fact that he won the straw poll in TEXAS by 41%? Hmm…

  4. Ogre says:

    He would be better than any Democrat? I’m not so sure. What’s the difference between him and Hillary? Recently, she’s be saying she supports the troops/war, too. They have the exact same position on abortion, gay rights, guns, crime, etc. I honestly do not see ANY difference between those two at all.

  5. Jenn Sierra says:

    [applauding] Bravo! Bravo!

    This desperately needed to be said. Like the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha and others, Rudy has been capitalizing on what Ann Coulter called, the “Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility,” and using the grief of New Yorkers and Americans to act as if he has absolute moral authority and should not be questioned.

  6. […] Is Giuliani a One Trick Pony? […]

  7. Billy Joe says:

    Short answer: Yes, Giuliani is a 1 trick pony. His personal life is more sordid than Clinton’s, to boot. It’s worth noting that the mobbed up former head of NY Police, Bernie Kerick was Rudy’s nominee for head of DHS. Of course, David Vitter is a big Rudy supporter as is the guy in North Carolina who was busted for selling crack. Whatever his positions are, he sure has a bad eye for people. And even Fredrick of Hollywood has slightly more credibility in the ‘family values’ department (Where’s all of the Thompson coverage, anyway? Did it finally dawn on Repubs that Thompson is a lazy, unread moron?)

    Regarding the ridiculous point of Jenn Sierra above about the ‘liberal’ doctrine of infallibility, perhaps she could explain the Republican ‘Doctrine of Infallibility’ when it comes to the military? The General ‘Betray-us’ advertisement has been front and center of the Republican brayings in Congress for two weeks now. If the substance of their whiney complaints doesn’t amount to a ‘doctrine of infallibility’ towards the military, I don’t know what does. Bush himself constantly says that we can criticize him, but we should not criticize the military, ever. But then, he surrounds himself with troops and asserts that because he’s commander in chief, criticism of him is equivalent to criticizing the troops and therefore, off-limits. A perfect circle of illogical stupidity. Side note: I love it how he’s the commander-in-chief as long as he can take credit for something, but anything that requires someone to take responsiblity, he foists it off onto the military, who are normally untouchable (doctrine of infallibility!). For example, in whenever the heat becomes too much to bear (Abu Ghraib, rudderless occupation), he washes his hands of them along with his Commander-in-Chief responsiblities. What ever happened to the so-called ‘War Czar’, Douglas Lute, to whom Bush delegated his Commander-in-Chief responsibility for the wars, anyway?

    Like Guiliani, Bush takes credit for everything and responsiblity for nothing. They are ideologically closer than you guys realize. There are few substantive policy differences.

  8. Schatz says:

    First of all, Fredericks of Hollywood is a killer store with some really great stuff and I am offended that you would use them as a moral meter by which to measure “family values.” I happend to admire (and own) numerous items from them. Why not pick something more masculine (and appropriate) – Hustler? Playboy? Clothing and/or underwear certainly does not make a person moral or immoral but pornography is a whole diffrent ballgame. Very judgmental for a lib.

    Secondly, I have read numerous articles and items from Thompson and happen to find him opinionated, intelligent, and interesting. You I find opinionated, boring, and most often wrong. However, I didn’t go there until you started flinging it around.

    Tell me BJ were you born stupid and obnoxious or is that something you have been working up to for your whole life?