Conor J Rogers, Editor
Ideology: Republican | Writing from: New Jersey
Will he or won’t he? Rudy Giuliani is contemplating a return to New York politics, this time around for Governor. As an enthusiastic supporter of Rudy in the 2008 election, his electoral undoing known as ‘wait it out in Florida’ was tough to watch. Yet no matter the merits (and often criticisms) of his 2008 campaign, Rudy Giuliani remains the 
man who brought substantial, positive change to New York City. He brought the largest city in the United States back to prosperity, facilitated an economic boom in Manhattan, and balanced the budget repeatedly (apparently an impossible task for Albany). All of this precedes the demonstration of leadership following the September 11th attacks that made him a household name. On top of all this, it seems the more and more Rudy gets back in New York’s news, the higher his poll numbers go.
‘So goes New York, goes the Nation’ could easily be the mantra of the 2008-2009 recession. As New York City banks crashed and crumbled, so too did the nation’s financial security. The mess on Wall Street is at least a partial cause of home foreclosures everywhere from Miami to Seattle. In light of this, every American should closely watch the upcoming Governor’s race. New York, the financial engine of the United States needs two things: First, a leader that does not put up with wall street fraud or cime and second, a business-friendly Albany. With Rudy Giuliani, we have a man famous for both.
As a US Attorney and as Mayor he took down mob families, Wall Street fraud and cleaned up crime across the city, while at the same time cut taxes in over twenty times, saving tax-payers and businesses in the city nearly 9 billion dollars during his tenure as Mayor. He brought residents, investment and confidence back to a city in the gutter.
As the executive who turned a dilapidated Times Square in the 1990s into the flashing economic center that it is now, Upstate New York residents should welcome him to Albany. As a sort of penchant in New York State politics, upstate residents are constantly courted and then subsequently let down. Rudy has fixed run-down neighborhoods before, and economic renaissances were common during his tenure as mayor. Could he be the one to finally turn upstate around?
Again, New York City, (and New York State) is nearing the verge of a collapse – or at the very least a stumble. The Wall Street meltdown and its echo effects are soon to wreak budget havoc on the state. What seemed like an impenetrable economy in Manhattan is now looked at as a threat to the prosperity of the area, with many analysts worried that overall investment and cash flow will drop to levels not seen in over a decade, sending New York back to the late 80s and early 90s – not the brightest time in City history.
New York should turn to the man who has fixed this problem once already, a no-nonsense prosecutor, tax-cutting and business-friendly mayor who just happens to be one of the most famous New Yorkers in the United States.
Based on this record, come Patterson or Cuomo, New Yorkers, upstate and in the metropolitan area, would be hard pressed to find a reason not to turn to America’s Mayor – now all he has to do is get in the running.
I think Rick Lazio’s announcement the other day indicates that Rudy probably isn’t going to run. Even if he does, I wouldn’t count on the more socially conservative upstate electorate voting for a serial adulterer.
Lazio would run regardless of Rudy (considering last time he stood out of the way of Rudy – he got cancer and had to leave the race) Other signs like the fact Rudy met with the NYGOP chair, and NYCGOP officials are signs he will run.
Socially-conservative upstate usually votes for the Republican regardless, and especially right now with how high the taxes are in NY, they’ll be even more eager to vote for a tax cutter.
Who gives a damn about how upstate votes? New York City and the surrounding suburbs account for over 67% of NY’s population. Paterson has been such a nightmare that I’m sure the ‘social conservatives’ will rally for any Republican that has the chutzpah to reverse the mess that has been made.
High taxes? Oh no! ANYTHING BUT THOSE.
Don’t let the GOP anywhere near government in the next few years unless you want to see any progress on same-sex marriage radically rolled back and Wall Street run wild.
Also, after Giuliani’s total epic fail at his run for the presidency, I’m pretty sure he won’t run.
Interesting comments, Noah. However, I have several issues with your comments.
First, aren’t you the one who just recently railed against Obama, a Democrat, for lack of progress on gay rights? I know you voted for an independent candidate; however, considering independent candidates rarely poll in significant numbers, I’m going to rationally conclude your comment would suggest that you favor Democrats on gay rights, as opposed to Republicans. Now, maybe it’s just me, but it’s kind of hard to “roll back” progress when there really hasn’t been any. Furthermore, Giuliani is pro-civil unions. Curiously, that’s also Obama’s position.
Second, I really disagree with you in saying that Giuliani’s campaign was an “epic fail.” He ran a strong campaign but ultimately his strategy proved unsuccessful, even though he led in the polls for months. Besides, the overwhelming majority of politicians who run for President aren’t selected as their party’s nominee, so Giuliani is far from alone in that so-called “failed campaign” category. However, if you would like an example of an “epic” campaign fail, please refer to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s camp was under the impression that convention delegates were assigned in entirety to the winning candidate, as in the Electoral College, when in fact they are awarded according to percentage.
Finally, one last note: high taxes actually are something we should be avoiding, despite your sarcastic but unconvincing argument. New Yorkers are subject to some of the highest property taxes in the nation – in addition to already relatively high sales and income taxes (compare this to New Hampshire, which has high property taxes but no sales or income taxes). It is my personal view that social issues inherently take a backseat in the presence of economic issues. It goes back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – basic physiological requirements come far before social needs. If people can’t afford to feed themselves – whether it is because of oppressive tax burdens (as often favored by Democrats) or through government entitlement and economic stimulus programs that cause massive inflation (as recently favored by Democrats) –social equality immediately less pressing. Please don’t confuse what I’m saying: I’m a strong supporter of gay rights, but I’m also a strong supporter of economic rights. People will put up with almost any political order as long as the government doesn’t take too much of their money away from them; for example, the French Revolution was jump-started by unjust salt taxes. So yes, anything but high taxes.
Michele,
Giuliani came in last place in the New Hampshire primary with, what, 7%? How is that not an epic fail?
Also, Michele, I’m pretty sure the richest people in New York will be able to feed themselves just fine even if the Democrats raised taxes on them by 50%.
Noah, considering he would be running for governor of New York, I really don’t see how the views of New Hampshire voters has relevancy, and I strongly disagree with you on taxes. Such a policy would penalize people for being successful. Successful people built this country, and the last thing we should do is punish hard work, as you suggest.
Noah,
As you know from living in the New York and New Jersey area, where a Policeman and a Teacher together make 150,000, which is barely enough to sustain a family – higher taxes in NY obviously doesn’t mean lack of food (I believe Michele was just overemphasizing her point) but it may make the difference between going to a SUNY college and a better, private school, or being able to live up to the standard living in one of the most expensive states in the nation.
When people are taxed higher, less jobs are created. Governor Paterson has made his ambitions clear, by proposing taxing everything from Ipods and furniture to delivered food and soda. (see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5361269.ece)
Taxes might not literally make the difference between food and no food for some New Yorkers, but will they affect how many people re-invest in the economy, hire new employees, and enjoy a better quality of life? Yes, always.
lol @ punishing hard work — yes, because people who dig ditches and flip our burgers and clean our toilets don’t work hard, as opposed to CEOs who sit at their desks all day and give orders before they take the company car home.
Michelle, how can you say that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was more of an “epic fail” than Rudy’s? Rudy was hardly in contention for the nomination once voting got around his overall was so bad. Hillary was right up there with Obama until the last couple series of votes. Just because he “led in the polls” doesn’t mean anything. Look at the votes! The votes prove that the people just weren’t behind Giuliani, except for in places like New York. Hillary won a heck of a lot of states and is currently secretary of state. And where is Giuliani? Trying to figure out how to revive his political career.
lol @ working all your life, rising in the ranks of your company, to become CEO.
lol @ you thinking that accurately reflects reality.
“For the majority of American workers, wages through the nineties either fell or barely kept pace with inflation…While the inevitable trickle-down had its predictable effects (booming service industries, great innovation in luxury products, the return of servants to the homes of the rich), many of the usual mechanisms that allowed workers to participate in boom economies had been shut down….Stock markets, now entrhoned as the judge of all economic value, massively rewarded those companies and those CEOs most ruthlessly committed to laying off great swaths of their workforce.”
- Thomas Frank
The fact of the matter is that neoclassical liberalism is an expressway to inequality and poverty for the vast majority of Americans. While some libertarians might claim that jobs that have left the US as a result of their precious free trade are being replaced by other jobs, one wonders whether, in their fantasy-land where capitalism has no flaws, all jobs pay the same or if they’re just plain stupid enough to think that a $7.10/hr (it would be $3.00/hr if they had their way, because there would be no minimum wage) has the same buying power as $30.00/hr.
Right, because other forms of left wing governing (communism and socialism) historically result in prosperity for all!