It's easy to forget with the dulcet tones of Arthur Branch massaging our ears, but Rudy Giuliani is still the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. Two nights ago he appeared on Larry Kudlow's goofy CNBC show* and talked almost exclusively about economics, at one point sounding like he regretted his days as a grandstanding, trader-busting U.S. Attorney.
Mr. GIULIANI: Sarbanes Oxley is almost another example of what we're talking about with that housing market. And I've watching this from the time I was US attorney in the Justice Department. You go through a period of time in which we have these things happen where people commit crimes, which is kind of a part of human nature. Some people just commit crimes. Then we over regulate, then we have to go back and correct the over regulation. And I think probably that's what happened to Sarbanes Oxley. We reacted. We reacted to some pretty serious crimes that were committed. Congress reacted. Probably over reacted. Some of the provisions are somewhat unrealistic about certifications--certificiations that somebody just can't make accurately.
KUDLOW: Mm-hmm.
Mr. GIULIANI: I ran a city like New York, it's like running a big gigantic multi-national company. I had 300,000 employees. I remember when I first came into it with a bond offering and they wanted me to certify it, with everything with accurate. I said, `I can't sign that.' I said I'm a votist, I'm a--I'm not going to sign because I don't know if it's accurate, you're going to have to go back and make the certification accurate. You're going to have to say other people represented this to me. And you've got to give an accurate picture of how this operation really works. And I think Sarbanes has pushed us to a point where things that are being required are almost fiction and that's not a good thing.
Giuliani so impressed Wall Street Journaler (and Club for Growth exile) Stephen Moore that he said this:
Today we find out that Steve Forbes is signing on to Giuliani's campaign. So is Rudy carving out a niche as the fiscal conservative candidate who'll govern like Reagan without the speeches to the March for Life?
*I like Kudlow's economics, but he's way too prone to linking movement in the stock market to things traders don't care about but right-wingers do. See here.
I like Kudlow's economics, but he's way too prone to linking movement in the stock market to things traders don't care about but right-wingers do.
Too true. He also has a habit of characterizing anything that favors big publicly-traded corporations over their smaller competition as "pro free-market capitalism".
Milton Friedman Giuliani, as opposed to Mitt Falwell, John McKristol, Hillary Rodham Castro, Saddam Hussein Obama, Bruiser Stone Edwards, and on and on.
If he apologizes on national TV for his abuses of power--while sobbing--and gets the entire Constitution tattooed on his chest (upside down, so he can read it), I might reconsider my opinion of him. He must also marry Rose Friedman and chop down this tree with. . .a herring!
The only difference between King Solomon and Sean Hannity is that Hannity would've cut the baby in half, then he would've turned to the two women and said, "Which half do you want?"
As it stands now, I am backing Ron Paul. When he inevitably pulls out, I will back Giuliani. When we find something incredibly bad about Giuliani’s background, I will migrate towards Richardson. When his campaign fizzles, I will move towards Obama. When Obama starts to proclaim health care is a “right” and backs a single payer system, I will move towards Romney. When Romney flips on something at the last minute, I will jump on Newt’s bandwagon. Once Newt pulls out because he started too late and doesn’t have funding, I will forget about that reason I left Giuliani and back him again.
Those Fox News stock shows are hilariously bad. Are Iran, George Soros, and Hillary Clinton planning to destroy your 401k? It's said a whole Fox Bidness channel is on the way.
Sorry, I put the monocle in to discuss Rudy on guns with mediageek, and now I can't get the damn thing out of my eye. I wonder if mediageek is still running around with overalls and a peice (sic) of straw in his mouth.
"""When we find something incredibly bad about Giuliani’s background, I will migrate towards Richardson."""
What do you consider as "incredibly bad"?
Suggesting someone with mob ties should lead the DHS isn't bad, or just not incredibly? His flip-floping on the issues? My way or the highway attitude? Adulterer? Serial marriage? Didn't have the guts to tell his wife he was filing for divorce? Think museums should not show any art which he disapproves? Drinking a beer in the park is a crime, but shooting an innocent unarmed man 41 times, not really a crime? Cries like a baby and files suit because he didn't like an ad on the side of a bus?
The sad thing is that I could go on and on. Sure much of it would not meet the bar of incredible, but the shear volume should raise a flag.
If your looking for a President that will take a smaller government approach. Don't vote for a former prosecutor.
If your looking for an authority figure. Then he's a good pick.
Why don't you come clean and tell us how you really feel?
The marriage stuff is just fodder, the Museum stuff was about taxes funding scheisse art (but curiously not about removing art funding altogether), he sues people who libel him on sides of buses, etc. Yes, Rudy has a long record as Mayor. It will be both good and bad. He's an authority figure, but he also is a small government guy on regulatory issues, which goes against the authority figure idea.
The thing that concerns me is his cavalier attitude towards pumping obscene amounts of lead into unarmed men. That kind of mistake will happen, but I've never liked the way Giuliani made the innocent dead guys look like hardened criminals. Inexcusable.
I'm trying to post this quote on every thread about this terrible, terrible man.
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
I think apologies now would be appropriate from all the Reason-oids who were doubting Giuliani, and dissing us Libertarians who've been supporting him.
Ahem, ahem. You can't start by apologizing to me. I'll be happy to report back to my fellow Libertarians for Giuliani of y'all's sincere apologies.
Eric at Libertarians for Giuliani
Oh, and did you all catch that no less than 3 (!!!) Libertarian Conservatives have endorsed Rudy in the last week:
Congressman Ed Royce of Orange County, CA
Steve Forbes
Michigan State Rep. Jack Brandenburg
Now we may have to add Stephen Moore to that List.
How 'bout a little context? I have a hard time getting riled up over the quote, but these people sure don't. I know I'm supposed to be shocked, but I see it as a veritable truth that people give up certain freedoms to live in society. The idea is as old as Rousseau's Social Contract. Only pure anarchists would argue otherwise. Now we hate Rudy for recognizing reality?
There are enough instances of his actual use of authority (for questionable ends) that swiftboating a quote out of context is just silly. Instead of talking about his drawbacks, your post is akin to pissing on your TV screen when a Giuliani ad comes on.
I would say that every presidential hopeful is drunk on power. It's almost a requirement, and the Ron Pauls of the world who aren't powermad aren't taken seriously.
Freedom is not about authority, but the lack thereof. In it's absolute form, there would be no laws. Of course, you can't have absolute freedom in society as Lamar points out. How much law is always in debate.
But to say Rudy is recognizing reality when he says "freedom is about authority" would be wrong regardless of context. Freedom is anti-authority. To be free to do something means that that authorities can not stop you.
When Orwell wrote Freedom = Slavery in 1984. He meant what Rudy was saying. Freedom is about obeying authority
"To be free to do something means that that authorities can not stop you."
Am I free to walk down the street? Of course. Let's say there are no police at all in NYC and crime is rampant. Am I free to walk the streets? Only in technicality world. In the real world, authority has made it safe, and since it is safe, people have more freedom to move about. The thugs, of course, lost their freedom to terrorize. I know that this is an extreme example, but as long as where going to quote people out of context to prove a point, I might as well use archetypes to prove a point.
"When Orwell wrote Freedom = Slavery in 1984. He meant what Rudy was saying."
I get your point, and Rudy is probably the most outspoken and feared on power issues. But nobody has shown me that they've read the entire quote, or has any idea what the context was. They see it, they already sort of believe it, they want to believe it, what more do you need?
""Am I free to walk down the street? Of course. ""
Not totaly true. Rudy made certain public street "off limits" to any one who didn't live on that block. He did this in the name of the drug war. Cops would set up barracades and you would have to show them ID to prove you did live there before you were allowed through. That was the same for all of Manhattan below 14th Street after 9/11 for a few weeks. (I cut him slack on that one.)
Back to your point, if there were no cops you would be free to walk down any street. You just might need to use your freedom to carry a gun. The thugs lost nothing, they still have the freedom to terrorize. Just because your "free" to do something does not mean it will be easy to do. Just because it's harder doesn't mean the freedom is gone. But I do understand your point, which is why I don't agree with absolute freedom.
Society needs rules, but that does not make you free. More rules, is less freedom. The question is how much freedom should we have. That has been the debate for more than 2000 years.
Rudy's context was fighting crime. Here is a link. I'm surpised you didn't google the quote, since you were so interested in the context. I did, curious minds want to know! lol.
There are some important words to focus on. Ok, I'm nitpicking, now. "to cede to lawful authority a GREAT DEAL of discretion" Not a little bit, not a lot, but a "great deal" of discretion. That should raise a flag with anyone who is pro-freedom. I would say as a citizen of a society you are willing to cede to lawful authority only that which is necessary. Of course, one could argue of the term necessary. Rudy's quote is an extention of his law enforcement views, obey or else.
Your concern with rudy was this,
"""The thing that concerns me is his cavalier attitude towards pumping obscene amounts of lead into unarmed men. That kind of mistake will happen, but I've never liked the way Giuliani made the innocent dead guys look like hardened criminals. Inexcusable."""
Inexcusable or maybe Rudy didn't think they properly ceded to the lawful authority.
Question.
How much of what you do, should be controlled by the authorities
A. none
b. a little some
c. some
d. a lot
e. a great deal
f. all
I'm nitpicking again, but I would say if you agree with e, you are pretty close to the absolute security end of the security/freedom stick.
