Dear Mr. Trump, give us Rudy Giuliani !

Dear Mr. President-Elect:

As one who was loyal early and long, right after my own Rand Paul dropped out, and took a lot of heat for it, please, please give us Rudy !

Here are three big reasons you should pick Rudolph Giuliani as Secretary of State.


1) He is the most qualified and successful politician-statesman alive. He succeeds at everything he does.

Working in the Justice Department and for the State of New York, he more than any other figure, brought down the famous five families of the Mafia which had been an intractable problem for the economy and society of America for generations.

He ended the reign of violence on the streets of New York, which was once like Chicago is today under Rahm Emanuel.

My feel is that he needs a new challenge. And this is it.

Actors who are good at one part often get type cast and need a new role to challenge their skills and give them range. Rudolph Giuliani, who succeeds at everything he does, needs that challenge. And you need him at your side.

As Mayor of New York City, he made the city great again and he can help you do that for America in the world.

Still want to drain the swamp? He did it in New York.

2.) He was loyal.

I’m not against your narrative of “team of rivals.” I think you are generous and smart to reach out to Mitt Romney and others who dissed you and involve them in your campaign to make America great again.

And Romney’s effort to turn the world of LDS against you didn’t work. Which makes your generosity all the more meaningful. And yes, you want to heal that. You SHOULD heal that.

So make Mitt the Ambassador to the Court of St. James.

But don’t disappoint someone who risked everything for you when it looked like you couldn’t win. And who was willing to sit on the sidelines with ignominy for the rest of his life. For you.

3.) He is Catholic. And you won those rust belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania by picking up former union workers, so called “Reagan Democrats” who are Catholic.

Okay, I hear you. We have six Catholics on the Supreme Court.

But now you have a vice president and a secretary of education and a secretary of HUD who are evangelical Christians. Time for a Catholic. Who is loyal to you and a genius at everything he does.

Give us Rudy. You need him. Team of rivals is good. Team of genius is better.



8 Responses to Dear Mr. Trump, give us Rudy Giuliani !

  1. nalejbank says:

    I have come to like Rudy and his speeches on behalf of Donald Trump. My concern with every Trump choice will be; are they fully aware of their Oath of Office that also requires a solid understanding of the difference between being a Governor or Prosecutor and a federal official?
    It would be fine with me if Trump let Rudy pick a spot HE thinks he could do the most good for our country.
    The Insiders of the CFR need to be kept far from power and only patriots at guardhouses administrative policy and action.

  2. jimshierblog says:

    Doug – I admire you sense of loyalty and it’s hard to argue with the results that Rudy Guiliani was able to achieve for NYC but as Senator Rand Paul wisely pointed out last week, Secretary of State is our chief diplomat and we should be leary of any Neo-Conservatives who might take us to war again. I have a hard time getting over this (below).

  3. Anne Brown says:


  4. cd5 says:

    Doug, I think you are incorrect in your recommendation. It is true that Rudy is a successful politician, but he is not the most successful politician-statesman alive by any stretch of the imagination. Condi Rice is more qualified for secState than Rudy, for example. Rudy failed to win the 2008 nomination, for example. Taking down the mafia (more or less) and digging NYC further out of bankruptcy, plus doing pretty well during 9/11, are not the key qualifications in my book for a good-for-the-Constitution secState.

    As pointed out by JimShier and Christine above, it is a bad idea to make your chief diplomat somebody who is downright eager to see the military engage in foreign entanglements. Hillary Clinton was a big reason that Obama got into the business of overthrowing the regime in Libya (cf Benghazi and the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS and all kinds of complex blowback thereafter which is still ongoing). Do we really want Rudy, who is undoubtedly a hawk and likely well into neocon territory, to take over that role under potus Trump? Here is Rudy’s plan for foreign affairs, in a single sound-bite. “The only thing you can do to stop Islamic extremist terrorism is you have to be on offense.” Specifically for ISIS, Rudy recommends regime change in Syria (toppling Assad), a no-fly zone in Syria (putting us in direct conflict with Russia — the only country flying aircraft there), air strikes, and ground troops. This is from June 2016. Rudy was critical of Obama, and then of Hillary, over the Benghazi fiasco… but methinks he was critical over the *handling* of the attack, specifically the lack of an immediate military response. For Rudy, there is almost never a reason to NOT send in the ground troops. (There is not much hope that Trump will resist such advice either — gives some cherrypicked quotes.)

    Beyond the hawkish-at-all-costs foreign policy stances Rudy holds, there are his more general stances: Rudy is a liberal-leaning repub, not a libertarian-leaning repub. He was the most moderate of the 2008 contenders. He is the Kasich of 2008. He believes in big government first, not individual liberty first. Besides the specific role of secState in trying to keep us out of foreign entanglements (which Rudy would be poorly suited to accomplish), the secState is also a cabinet member that advises the potus on domestic affairs (NSA tactics and federal spending and federal overreach and all the rest). I don’t have much hope that Rudy will be backing the flat tax, or Rand’s penny-plan to solve the national debt, or restoration or the fourth amendment.

    To briefly address your other two points in Rudy’s favor, it is true that he was loyal to Trump-the-nominee, giving a big speech at the convention and working hard to help Trump defeat Hillary… but that is what Rudy always does. He backed McCain in 2008, after losing to him. He backed Romney in 2012, in almost exactly the same way he has backed Trump in 2016 — — as an attack surrogate complaining about the dems having an insufficiently-militaristic foreign policy. Rudy didn’t endorse Trump early, and even as late as the NY primary was only willing to ‘support’ the Trump’16 effort against Cruz, explicitly without going so far as actually endorsing. Rudy is loyal to the republican party, not to Trump personally. (Did somebody say “establishment”? Gasp.)

    And yes, Rudy is a Catholic. So is Marco Rubio, but that doesn’t mean I want Rubio as secState — I’d rather have Senator DeSantis than Senator Rubio, for that matter, and I don’t much care what religion DeSantis holds, as long as he holds true to the first amendment in the originalist meaning. The religion of the secState isn’t crucial, and the focus on demographics is the wrong focus for *any* type of cabinet-decisions (how many women? how many minorities? how many of each religion? those are dem-party mainstream-media questions, designed to divide and conquer).

    So at the end of the day, Rudy is a bad pick for secState, though he might be a good pick for some other role (personally I would like to see Rudy as head of the IRS — charged with cleaning up internal corruption at the internal revenue service and firing bureaucrats that are weaponizing tax enforcement for political gain). Who is a *good* pick for secState? Who might actually get accepted by Trump? Well, that’s a harder question. Rand Paul has come out very publicly saying that Bolton and to a lesser extent Rudy are nay-votes, and since he is not merely a senator but also specifically on the committee which pre-confirms secState nominees this holds weight. Rand suggested fellow usSen Bob Corker for secState, which seems pretty dumb at first — Corker is NOT somebody that will necessarily be an ideal secState, although he would likely be better than Rudy.

    But after looking deeper into it, methinks there are three reasons Rand settled on Corker, not counting the better-than-Bolton-or-Rudy reason; first of all, in the initial list of secState candidates that were “leaked” to the media by the Trump campaign (presumably purposefully), Corker was the third name after Rudy and Bolton, so there is decently solid evidence that Trump *would* accept secState Corker. More subtly, by getting estab-repub-incumbent-usSen Corker out of his current legislative branch seat and into the executive branch, that gives tea-and-liberty folks a fighting chance at winning that seat in Tennessee during the 2018 election cycle. And in the near term, Corker is the committee-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations group, which means *that* position will also open up: other current members are Rand RonJohnson Risch Perdue Flake Rubio Barrasso Gardner Isakson, and almost anybody on that list would be an improvement over Corker for the crucial Senate committee in charge of funding foreign aid and funding foreign diplomacy and funding foreign entanglements.

    There are some other names being floated for secState, besides Rudy and Bolton and Corker (even good old Mitt is getting some friendly media-exposure now that he isn’t a threat to Obama’12).
    Fiorina is good on many issues, but is a war-hawk (not as much as Rudy perhaps but far more than Corker). Tulsi Gabbard the democrat might be a surprise favorite; she is an anti-war dem who backed Bernie, and specifically told the media that she met with Trump to warn him against trusting the neocons. But if I had to pick, I’d probably say that Dana Rohrabacher would be the lesser-of-the-weevils. Trump apparently has spoken with Rohrabacher about being secState; Rohrabacher is a member of Amash’s LibertyCaucus in the House, and has a decent-but-not-great voting record (he is from California so that may have something to do with it). Rohrabacher would NOT be perfect, as he would likely tilt the balance of geopolitical power towards Putin (yikes), but he would be a liberty-allied secState. Corker would be decidedly imperfect, but has the advantage of freeing up a senate seat and a committee seat (whereas with Rohrabacher the liberty movement would *lose* a pretty good usRep — almost certain to be replaced by some estab puppet from California in the special election methinks).

    Apologies for the supersized comment, but I thought this was important stuff; hope you and yours are doing well.

  5. No, thanks. You can keep your neo-cons like Giuliani or Gingrich.

    Let’s ask the widows of 9/11 firefighters about the “Statemanship” of neo-con scum like Rudy Giuliani.

  6. cd5 says:

    MSM says the Rudy is no longer seeking the Secretary of State role; he was offered Attorney General (his main expertise is as a prosecutor), and also head of Department of Homeland Security (his main claim to fame is being the NYC mayor during 9/11), but turned both down — Sen. Jeff Sessions will run DOJ and Gen. James Kelly will run DHS. Trump was quoted saying “as appropriate, I will call upon him for advice and can see an important place for him in the administration at a later date.” So maybe Rudy is going to be added somewhere, down the road.

    In the meanwhile, the folks currently (rumoured to be) on the latest shortlist are #1. democrat General Jim Stavidris, who was almost Hillary’s veep-selection, #2. conserva-dem from West Virginia Joe Manchin (most likely Senator to flip parties in 2017 since Trump won his state by double digits and the dems are now 99% uniformly anti-coal-miner), #3. dempublican Jon Huntsman the stalking horse that tried to undercut Ron Paul in NH during 2012 (then quickly dropped out to back Mitt), #4. billionaire Rex Tillerson (ceo of ExxonMobil), and #5. liberty-caucus member Dana Rohrabacher (who I mentioned above). It is also still possible that Mitt/Bolton/Corker/Petraeus could make a comeback, or that Trump could go some entirely new direction.

    But I suspect that Trump will pick either Tillerson or with luck Rohrbacher for the top role, and will announce several of the others as a package deal (Bolton as one of the deputy secretary roles + Stavridis or Petraeus or McChyrstal as one of the security-undersecretaries and so on). Richard Armitage is also in the non-short-list group, rumour has it … he served in previous administrations … should he be part of the Trump administration?

    • cd5 says:

      Yikes… apparently wordpress now turns nytimes URLs into embedded blurbs! Sorry about that, didn’t know it would do such a thing, feel free to edit that out Doug.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: