Is Rudy Guiliani a Neo-Con????

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
I say Rudy is a neo-con. Lets take a look.

Rudy says he will cut taxes. Yet, he says he will NOT cut spending (forget how often he says he cut taxes in NY city, he has said consistently during the Presidential campaign he WON'T cut spending). When asked by Chris Matthews if he won't cut spending how would he deal with the deficit, Rudy said he would GROW us out our deficits.
That's clearly Neo-Con.

Rudy tried to grab every bit of power when he was Mayor of New York. He has supported every Bush attempt to expand the powers of the Presidency.The Unitary President is one of the key features of the Neo-Con plan.

Rudy has said time and time again that Americans should give up their freedoms. In fact he goes farther than Bush, or any neo-con in the belief that we should not have our freedoms.
Thats clearly neo-con.

When asked what Rudy would do to promote democrac and freedom in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Rudy said that its not his priority. Isn't that the neo-con policy? Say you are for freedom and democracy, but actually prefer dictatorships in countries that have dictators friendly to the U.S.?

So on the big issues, I'd say Rudy is a big, big neo-con.
Do you agree?
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: techs
I say Rudy is a neo-con. Lets take a look.

Rudy says he will cut taxes. Yet, he says he will NOT cut spending (forget how often he says he cut taxes in NY city, he has said consistently during the Presidential campaign he WON'T cut spending). When asked by Chris Matthews if he won't cut spending how would he deal with the deficit, Rudy said he would GROW us out our deficits.
That's clearly Neo-Con.

Rudy tried to grab every bit of power when he was Mayor of New York. He has supported every Bush attempt to expand the powers of the Presidency.The Unitary President is one of the key features of the Neo-Con plan.

Rudy has said time and time again that Americans should give up their freedoms. In fact he goes farther than Bush, or any neo-con in the belief that we should not have our freedoms.
Thats clearly neo-con.

When asked what Rudy would do to promote democrac and freedom in such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Rudy said that its not his priority. Isn't that the neo-con policy? Say you are for freedom and democracy, but actually prefer dictatorships in countries that have dictators friendly to the U.S.?

So on the big issues, I'd say Rudy is a big, big neo-con.
Do you agree?

Where exactly have you referenced this neo-con policy at? Is it written somewhere that "this is the official neocon policy"?.

:cookie: Troll on techs
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_conservatism
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics; a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives; and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.

The Rudy running for president now is a neo-con. The Rudy who was mayor of NYC was a NY liberal.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Not sure if he is a neo-con but it sure appears he is a NE liberal. Why the republicans are trying to shove a NE liberal down our throats is beyond me. Havent they learned from the democrats?

 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure if he is a neo-con but it sure appears he is a NE liberal. Why the republicans are trying to shove a NE liberal down our throats is beyond me. Havent they learned from the democrats?

I am overjoyed that the ridiculous right sees him this way. As a liberal, I find the idea of him in office quite terrifying.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
All the neocons seems to be attracted to Rudy. Thats the way he thinks he is going to win. Here's an article in last weeks edition of newsweek.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/42460

Used Hawks Flock to Giuliani's Team
By Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 3:17 PM ET Oct 9, 2007

Neocons can't help but slink around Washington, D.C. The Iraq War has given the neoconservatives?who favor the assertive use of American power abroad to spread American values?something of a bad name, and several of the Republican candidates seem less than eager to hire them as advisers. But Rudy Giuliani apparently never got that memo. One of the top foreign-policy consultants to the leading GOP candidate is Norman Podhoretz, a founding father of the neocon movement.

Podhoretz is in favor of bombing Iran because of the country's unwillingness to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. He also believes America is engaged in a "world war" with "Islamofascism" and that Giuliani is the only man who can win it. "I decided to join Giuliani's team because his view of the war?what I call World War IV?is very close to my own," Podhoretz tells NEWSWEEK. (World War III, in his view, was the cold war.) "And also because he has the qualities of a wartime leader, including a fighting spirit and a determination to win."

Giuliani clearly hopes this image, born of his heroic performance on 9/11, can carry him to the GOP nomination and to the White House. But is he really the candidate who will "keep Americans safer" if his primary tactic is to go "on offense" in the "long war," as he often puts it in his campaign stump speech? Critics will say that the neocons already tried that?in Iraq. Still, what's left of the neocon movement does seem to be converging around the Giuliani campaign, to some degree, because he embraces their common themes: a willingness to use military power, a tendency to group all radical Islamist groups together as a common enemy, strong support for Israel and an aggressive posture toward Iran. "He's positioning himself as the neo-neocon," jokes Richard Holbrooke, a top foreign-policy adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Among the core consultants surrounding Giuliani: Martin Kramer, who has led an attack on U.S. Middle Eastern scholars since 9/11 for being soft on terrorism; Stephen Rosen, a hawkish professor at Harvard who advocates major new spending on defense and is close to prominent neoconservative Bill Kristol; former Wisconsin senator Bob Kasten, who often sided with the neocons during the Reagan era and was an untiring supporter of aid to Israel, and Daniel Pipes, who has advocated for the racial profiling of Muslim Americans. (He's argued that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not the moral offense it's been portrayed as, though he doesn't say Muslims should suffer the same.)

Some traditional conservatives are wary of the Giuliani team. "Clearly it is a rather one-sided group of people," says Dimitri Simes of the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank. "Their foreign-policy manifesto seems to be 'We're right, we're powerful, and just make my day.' He's out-Bushing Bush." Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella says that while the candidate listens to these advisers because "he wants to have as much information as possible, at the end of the day he makes his own decisions." In some speeches and writings, Giuliani has clearly departed from the more extreme views of Podhoretz?who has said he "hopes and prays" that Bush bombs Iran ?and others. His foreign-affairs team also consists of those who take a more centrist view, chief among them his policy coordinator, Yale scholar Charles Hill, who is more skeptical of policies like democracy promotion than most neocons. "I don't really know much about neoconservatives," Hill tells NEWSWEEK, adding that the team engages in "lively discussions." Asked recently in London about Iran, Giuliani said he hoped to avoid military action in the end, but he indicated that the threat of using it should be made plain. "I believe the United States and our allies should deliver a very clear message to Iran, very clear, very sober, very serious: they will not be allowed to become a nuclear power," he said. Podhoretz, by contrast, tells NEWSWEEK: "I believe that a bombing campaign is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability."

Regardless of any differences on Iran, Giuliani's neocons are in line with his pro-Israel stance. As mayor of New York?home to the largest Jewish community in the United States?Giuliani became renowned in the 1990s for his aggressive support of Israel and his mistrust of Palestinian leaders. In 1995, with the Oslo peace process underway, Giuliani kicked Yasir Arafat out of a concert for world leaders at Lincoln Center. Arafat "has never been held to answer for the murders he was implicated in," the mayor said. On a trip to Israel in 2001, Giuliani told an Israeli audience: "We're together with you. We are bound by blood." Earlier this year, in an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine, Giuliani suggested that "too much emphasis" had been placed on promoting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He said "it is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist in the creation of another state that will support terrorism." One of his advisers, Pipes, has advocated "razing [Palestinian] villages from which attacks are launched."

All the other candidates for president, both Republican and Democratic, are also advocates of Israel, as are most American voters. And Giuliani's GOP rivals have also taken strong stands against Iran's nuclear program. There are also a few neocons advising them?most notably, Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter, who has joined Fred Thompson's team. Yet other GOP candidates, like Mitt Romney, have shied away from identifying too much with neocons, especially those who worked for the Bush administration. Romney has consulted with critics and skeptics of the Iraq War, including Gen. Anthony Zinni, Gen. Barry McCaffrey and former NATO commander Joseph Ralston?but he's also met with hawks like Fred Kagan. "He talks to everybody, more or less," says one campaign adviser who didn't want to be named talking about internal campaign strategy.

Giuliani may be gambling by leaning so heavily on the unpopular neocons. He also knows, however, that painting the War on Terror as a broad moral crusade?the basic neocon approach?is probably the only way he can win over a conservative Republican base that doesn't like his squishiness on values issues like abortion or his marriages. Giuliani has succeeded by casting the War on Terror as the "defense of Western civilization, and for many [conservative] voters that is a moral issue" that may be as important as abortion, says Gary Bauer of American Values, an advocacy group that promotes traditional marriage and pro-life views, among other conservative issues. (He's not backing a candidate.) "Without that it would be inconceivable that a socially liberal New York mayor could be leading in the polls for the Republican nomination." Giuliani's support of Israel also plays well with Christian evangelicals who have made survival of the Jewish state part of their doctrine. Then there is the Clinton factor. Even key Southern evangelical leaders who don't favor Giuliani because of his views on abortion, like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, tell NEWSWEEK that Giuliani is still running strong because the right sees him "as the only candidate who can beat Senator Clinton." No matter whom he's taking advice from, Giuliani knows that the impression that he can make Americans safer than Hillary Clinton could ultimately bring him the nomination and the presidency.




 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure if he is a neo-con but it sure appears he is a NE liberal. Why the republicans are trying to shove a NE liberal down our throats is beyond me. Havent they learned from the democrats?

I am overjoyed that the ridiculous right sees him this way. As a liberal, I find the idea of him in office quite terrifying.

We can all agree that we hate Guliani. He uses brash, totalitarian scare-tactics (which you hate) to push your socialist, liberal agenda (which I hate.)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure if he is a neo-con but it sure appears he is a NE liberal. Why the republicans are trying to shove a NE liberal down our throats is beyond me. Havent they learned from the democrats?

I am overjoyed that the ridiculous right sees him this way. As a liberal, I find the idea of him in office quite terrifying.

We can all agree that we hate Guliani. He uses brash, totalitarian scare-tactics (which you hate) to push your socialist, liberal agenda (which I hate.)

Dont kid yourself, Rudy isnt much different than Hillary or Obama. Somebody I am sure Glugglug will happily support. The only different is the letter in front of their names.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I don't think Rudy is per say a neo-con. I do think Rudy is a self promoting intellectual light weight who is more image than substance. If elected, Giuliani would almost certainly be captured by the neo-con agenda in much the same way GWB was.

What seems to motivate GWB and Giuliani is power and ego. Real neo-cons are more motivated by the organization needed to sell and pursue their agenda. Neo cons may prefer a Fred Thompson but they can use Giuliani as well. I think they are more afraid of someone like McCain. And I wonder about a Romney.

And yes Virginia, I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but I do believe in neo-cons as a distinct political entity, I do recognize their agenda, and their methods.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I find Giulani disgusting; on policy, he not only endorses the worst sorts of policies of any major candidate, but he celebrates the wrongness, for example making himself the primary opponent of Ron Paul's telling the truth; as a person, I find him to be a terrible 'sellout' to jump on the bandwagon of the day that will help him without much regard for the harm of the policies, and to have poor leadership.

In short, I think he's the most like Bush of any major candidate - the tool of the same interests who propped Bush up, and we'd get the same thing, the carte blanche for those interests and his empty speeches defending the wrong policies.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

So tell us then. What exactly are the core differences, in your opinion, between conservatives and liberals? Christianity isnt an excuse. Many Dems publicly admit and defend their faith. It cant be due to sending troops to harms way-EVERY president and congress has done that. It cant be lying...Democrats are just as guilty.

So tell us? Whats the difference? I know what I think, but with your hatred of the right, I'd like to know-
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

frothing at the mouth spotted.

I spot denial, and not in his post.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

What should we call murder happy lying pigs then? What should we call these people who claim to be part of the christian religion of peace, yet turn around and claim god wants us to bomb 3rd world nations?

What do we call these worthless wastes of space?. Since they claim to be conservative, yet they don't actually want peace and stability like the conservatives I know, we need a name to separate them from their better half. They're giving real conservatives a bad image. Not just social conservatives (which I don't care much for), but fiscal conservatives, too. These types of people are economical and social disasters.

I do agree with you about one thing... When I say "neo-con" I feel like I'm loosing a battle. You know, the battle to attempt to not label or generalize about people for easier identification. It's almost like how these "neo-cons" and their supporters call liberals "moon-bats". It's not fair, not that these "neo-cons" deserve any kind of respect, but I feel like I'm letting other people down.

Then again, we get back to "how do we describe them?". How do we identify one of these fake human beings? Should we just call them exactly what they are, using literal descriptions? Or do we save our breath and give them a nasty demeaning name? It kind of saves time and energy, time and energy that could be spent on better people.

So tell us then. What exactly are the core differences, in your opinion, between conservatives and liberals? Christianity isnt an excuse. Many Dems publicly admit and defend their faith. It cant be due to sending troops to harms way-EVERY president and congress has done that. It cant be lying...Democrats are just as guilty.

So tell us? Whats the difference? I know what I think, but with your hatred of the right, I'd like to know-

I don't think he's supporting liberals; he's saying neoconservatives are a perversion of conservative values. And they are, one only need witness the fiscal disaster the last 7 years that make moderate Dems more conservative by comparison. The hawkish outlook on war is also decidedly anti-conservative.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I don't think Rudy is per say a neo-con. I do think Rudy is a self promoting intellectual light weight who is more image than substance. If elected, Giuliani would almost certainly be captured by the neo-con agenda in much the same way GWB was.

What seems to motivate GWB and Giuliani is power and ego. Real neo-cons are more motivated by the organization needed to sell and pursue their agenda. Neo cons may prefer a Fred Thompson but they can use Giuliani as well. I think they are more afraid of someone like McCain. And I wonder about a Romney.

And yes Virginia, I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but I do believe in neo-cons as a distinct political entity, I do recognize their agenda, and their methods.

Agreed. And I have always said that Bush was a horrible president because of the people he surrounded himself with. Due to his lack of intelligence and inability to deal with especially foreign affairs, he depended way too much on their opinions. And the neo-cons used and abused him and his power.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
He would make a despicable president, certainly.

Beyond the fact his immediate family hates him, he's had three wives, the biggest firefighters union in the country hates him (so much for Mr 911) and he is probably indirectly responsible for the deaths of various emergency workers in 911 and also against advise from others put a crisis center in the biggest terror target in the country, he has already been caught in clear, undeniable lies (I know people have tried to find them for Bush, but his have been more lies of ommission than outright fabrications), such as the number of cops he added to NYC.

I would say he'd be a nightmare Commander in Chimp. The good news is that he is for gun control and is pro-life, plus he comes from the north, so he's got his work cut out for him grabbing right wing support. He should proove to be quite divisive, which will assist the dems getting their spot.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This "neocon" label is a demonizing feel good term for liberals. It's absolutely worthless. Based on wiki's explaination, there is ZERO difference between it and any other conservative. Noecon is in the same bucket of derogatory terms as wingnut...moonbat...bleeding heart...etc. It's really a bark with zero bite.

Anyway.

QFT. :thumbsup: