Firstly, if you volunteer “Rudy stinks” or some other such generalized message on a conservative message board, people will take offense. That’s basic manners 101. Those who strike first shouldn’t whine about civility or a lack thereof.

Debating your points makes little sense, because the points make little sense except one:

“For better or for worse, the President of the US cannot kick large numbers of American citizens out of the country. I gather that this is what you would like to see a President Rudy do.

No, not citizens, but when it comes to illegal aliens and the socio-political havoc they cause with their money-grubbing lawbreaking – and worse – A. he can, B. he should and C. you bet your bleeding heart I would, and so would 70% of polled Americans, too. By the way, Rudy didn’t kick anyone out of the city (what an absurd remark!), he just improved the neighborhoods, one result being that many of the less-ambitious, less-lucky and less any number of other things couldn’t afford to live there anymore. You know, your thinking rather completes the real world socialist/communist model: no free enterprise, nothing improves and the poor stay poor – right where they are.

But, somehow, I have this nagging suspicion that no one will convince you on the reverse of the positions you’ve taken, so I’ll stop trying, thanks.

I think you are being obtuse. I am saying that the reason crime went down in NY was not that Rudy somehow converted all the bad New Yorkers you complain about into Benneton models, but that the rising cost of living in the city forced out most of the criminal elements and the poor in general.

If Rudy actually had the ability to take crack addicts and convert them into Wall Street traders I’d support him myself.

But all that happened in the ninties is that NY exported its poor and criminals, who tend to overlap, to places outside its own borders. It did this not as a matter of policy or on Giulianis orders. It was simply the natural and accidental byproduct of the rising cost of living.

And yes, when those good, struggling poor people left they did take their highly valued, crime-statisitic-raising bahavior with them, and Rudy did that, too.

For better or for worse, the President of the US cannot kick large numbers of American citizens out of the country. I gather that this is what you would like to see a President Rudy do. Changing the number of “good, struggling poor people” in the country is not something Giuliani can do. Except by welcoming millions more of them to come to America, which is his policy.

Those who say that the drop in crime in NYC under Rudy was just part of a nationwide trend have it backwards. Most of the nationwide drop in crime was due to the drop in NYC.

Now that is just embarrassing. The drop in nationwide crime was due to the drop in crime in NY? This is the view that NY is the center of the universe.

NYC has about 2.5% of the total population of America. Are you seriously trying to say that the drop in crime among that 2.5% resulted in a large drop in the crime rate of the entire country? New Yorkers would have had to be responsible for half of all the crime in America for this to be true.

That is absolutely ridiculous. If he can find a CONSERVATIVE base to elect him, the use of a word like B.S. cannot affect his chances at all.

On July 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pm, blacktygrrrr said:
As someone born and raised in New York, and a conservative republican, I can sadly tell you that for a republican to be electable in New York City, some things have to give. It is what it is.

No one can tell what their true beliefs are and what they compromised in order to get elected.

I’ll try to keep this simple and direct, since you appear to be avoiding the important questions:

1. What first hand experience do you have with Rudy’s accomplishments?

2. What have the other candidates accomplished manifestly, that you can point to and see a dramatic improvement in something, on a scale with what Rudy did in NYC?

3. “Rudy is NOT a big anti-crime, pro-law-enforcement guy. Well maybe he is sometimes, when it suits him,”

Qualify that quote with examples.

Being for a liberal like Rudolf is also VERY suspicious.

Rudolf is:

1) Anti Gun.

2) Pro abortion, including late term abortion, aka infanticide. Oh I know, he says that “personally” he is against it. They all say that.

3) Draft dodger.

4) Pro gay marriage.

5) Pro illegal FANATIC.

6) Exceedingly poor personal life.

7) Recommended that turkey lettuce head Chertoff to Bush, after the first turkey that he recomended had to withdraw because of “personal” problems.

7) Etc.

If the Republican party can’t do better than Rudolf, they deserve to lose.