The big question that I keep asking is if these things offset his flaws, like guns and abortion.

Let me help you with his list of weaknesses:

Abortion (PRO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ABORTION!)
Gun Control
Gay Marriage
His own marriage

Rudy is a social LIBERAL. Republicans will LOOSE against EVEN HILLARY if he is the nomination because of many people who would vote for a 3rd party candidate.

You can count out the Right to Life vote and pro family vote with Rudy. And that’s a very solid 20%, probably more if you count both parties.

Rob,

I’m a Fred man and I don’t normally like to play numbers games, but you do have it wrong:

In contrast, city spending during Giuliani’s eight years increased just barely, by an average of 2.84 percent — a remarkable number given the 2.9 percent population-plus-inflation benchmark.

What that means is that Guiliani actually decreased government spending per capita and adjusted for inflation. Does that mean that he decreased it enough? I don’t know, but I have to give Guiliani credit for decreasing spending.

Having said that, Fred is still the better candidate fiscally as far as I’m concerned.

Rob,

I am not sure I agree. NYC’s entire labor force is unionized and their wages are tied to inflation. They have become so massive that almost the entire system is pegged to the inflation rate. Plus they have huge pension liabilities that are impossibel to cut. And huge infrastructure to maintain.

One of the first things he did is increase enforcement efforts by police to clean up the streets. I think that is probably even more memorable than the tax cuts in the eyes of most New Yorkers.

I have no problem with government growth and spending growth at the Federal Level if the growth is on National Defense (smart spending though) and border security. Increase spending on Intel. But I want results.

I am a free market Libertarian like yourself and believe that the Federal govt needs to stick to the original items that are their responsibility.

Guiliani Rewrites Fiscal History
Guiliani’s much touted claim he “turned a $2.3 Billion deficit into a multi-million dollar surplus” begs the honesty, and thus credibility of his candidacy .
It is well documented that Guiliani handed Bloomberg a $4 billion deficit and back in December 2001, Ed McMahon, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, wrote:
“Even if September 11 had never ocurred, the next mayor was destined to confront hard fiscal times. Recurring expenditures were on track to exceed revenues by at least $2 billion in Mayor Rudolph Guiliani’s last budget. Temporarily tamed in the mid-1990′s, City government is once again growing beyond New York’s ability to afford it. More than $2 billion in surplus funds will be needed to balance the 2002 budget. By the first year of Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure, if Guilian’s own predictions hold, the gap between expenditures and revenues will be wider than it has for nearly a decade.”
Guiliani’s tax cuts stimulated the economy, generated and sustained job growth, increased taxable income base and generated revenues & surpluses.
But, surpluses ain’t worth a hill of beans unless they go cheek-to-jowl with astute long-term fiscal policies and budget discipline. Guiliani misspent and squandered budget surpluses on his expanded City government and rolled over the surplus from one year to close the deficit in the next.
In 1997, State Comptroller Carl McCall accused Giuliani of spending revenue windfalls “like the worker who blows Friday’s paycheck that night”. In a March 2001 Village Voice, he referenced Guiliani’s profligate spending;
“Record budget surpluses afforded the City a golden opportunity to get on the path toward long-term fiscal stability. The opportunity is being squandered.” Guiliani’s own City Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, agreed;
“The most responsible use of past years’ record surpluses would have been to reduce the City’s mounting debt and build a reserve fund.”
McCall and Hevesi’s analysis of Guiliani’s 2002 budget was echoed by NY Independent Budget Office and Citizens Budget Commission.
In a 4/07 NY Daily News, Guiliani claimed he had “reduced the size of government in New York”. The Manhattan Institute demonstrated how from 1997 to 2000 he increased its size, adding 25,000 City employees and upping headcount to 253,000, the highest in history – adding almost $5 billion in personnel costs.
It was left to Michael Bloomberg to reduce the size of Guiliani’s government and improve efficiencies. Guiliani’s first three budgets cut spending and reduced City jobs, but then he abandoned all discipline. Neither reducing the scope of government, nor increasing efficiency.
Testimony to this – between June 1996 and February 2001, he hired 3,109 new police officers, although operational strength only increased by 1,585 officers. NY Police officers worked an average of 200 days a year vs 261 days for other occupations, and in 2001 were hotly campaigning for large pay increases.
Under Bloomberg, the police ranks were reduced by 10%, without sacrificing results. In fact, the declining crime rate has been since sustained by a smaller Police Dept.
Guiliani’s over-spending kept apace across all categories; capital expenditures, construction, housing, outsourced contracts, education, economic development subsidies, the arts, welfare.
As a result, Bloomberg inherited the “city’s gravest fiscal crisis since the 70′s” and his first years of office was characterized by unpopular tax increases and drastic reductions in government spending.
Mayor Guiliani, you have claimed that you converted the deficit you inherited into a surplus, but in December 2001 the NY Times quoted you as estimating “the 2003 fiscal year budget gap at $2.9 billion”. Where was your surplus?
In January 2002′s NY Times, the Citizens Budget Commission commented:
“the City has done a poor job of addressing its long-term structural fiscal imbalance, resulting in large gaps between planned spending and expected revenues in future years”, giving your 2002 budget a “D” for “budgeting responsibly” in the “City Budget Report Card”.
Respectfully, Mayor Guiliani, the facts on record do not support your recent claim of fiscal conservatism.