Romney vs. Rudy: The PowerPoint

Update: Just to clarify: This is an official deck from the campaign, forwarded to fund raisers to help them in their Q4 efforts.

When Romney first entered the fray he was dubbed the “Mr. PowerPoint” and for good reason. He is one of the few candidates who makes regular use of the medium for more intimate group settings and for making the case for his strategy across his network of advocates.

Yesterday, MyManMitt obtained a copy of a “deck” entitled: “Romney vs. Rudy: Different Visions, Different Strategies”. Here are some key slides from the deck.

Be sure to come back tomorrow as we bring you live coverage from “The Washington Briefing”.

Title Slide: Romney vs. Rudy What the pundits are saying (sample) National vs. Local Polls
Romney’s Strategy: Tested, Proven Rudy’s Strategy: Unproven Rudy leads the national polls but…
Primary Calendar Iowa and New Hampshire Opportunity for Growth

Romney Campaign: Mayor Giuliani Sued Republicans to Keep Commuter Taxes in Place

Today, the Romney campaign came out swinging. In their first official Rudy exposé the Giuliani “tax and tax again” record is thrown into stark relief. The research is pretty extensive and makes an excellent case against the fiscal policy that Rudy advocated while Mayor.

“Earlier Today, Mr. Giuliani Assailed The Legislature For Seeking To End The Commuter Tax, Saying That If Anything, It Should Be Higher.” (Clifford J. Levy, “Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters,” The New York Times, 5/13/99)

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Fought To Tax People For Going To Work:

University Of Pennsylvania’s Factcheck.Org: Mayor Giuliani “Fought To Keep” The Commuter Tax. “Also, it’s worth noting that Giuliani’s list doesn’t mention one tax he fought to keep – New York City’s commuter tax, which was lifted by the state Legislature in 1999. The mayor and the city council sued the state to maintain the tax – .45 percent of earned income for most of the people affected – but lost in court. The city had been collecting about $360 million per year from commuters from New Jersey, Connecticut and other parts of New York state.” (, “Giuliani’s Tax Puffery,” Website,, 7/27/07)

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:

Mayor Giuliani Said That The Commuter Tax Should Be Increased Rather Than Eliminated. “Earlier today, Mr. Giuliani assailed the Legislature for seeking to end the commuter tax, saying that if anything, it should be higher.” (Clifford J. Levy, “Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters,” The New York Times, 5/13/99)

Mayor Giuliani Threatened Politicians Who Considered Voting For The Tax Cut. “At the City Hall event, Giuliani also warned Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and any other city-elected backers of the tax cut: ‘Voting against the interests of the city, somehow, some way, you will pay for it.’” (Dan Janison, “Former Foes United,” [New York] Newsday, 5/17/99)

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Called The $360 Million A Year Commuter Tax “Modest,” And Said The City Was “Entitled” To The Tax:

By 1999, More Than 750,000 Non-City Resident Commuters Were Paying The Commuter Tax. “The 33-year-old tax on more than 750,000 non-city residents who commute to jobs in the city rakes in $360 million a year for the Big Apple, when payments by New Yorkers and out-of-staters are counted.” (Gregg Birnbaum, et al. “Shel-Shocked Pataki Will Get Tax-Kill Bill Next Week,” New York Post, 5/20/99)

Mayor Giuliani Justified The Tax As “Modest.” “‘Sometimes, the game of politics gets out of control,’ Giuliani said. ‘This is a very modest tax.’” (Dan Janison, “Former Foes United,” [New York] Newsday, 5/17/99)

Mayor Giuliani Said That The City Government Was “Very Much Entitled To This Very Small Tax.” “‘The city should not feel that it’s doing anybody a favor here,’ Mr. Giuliani said. ‘We are very much entitled to this very small tax.’” (Clifford J. Levy, “Legislature Acts Quickly To Repeal Commuter Tax,” The New York Times, 5/18/99)

* Mayor Giuliani Administration Official: “We Want To Retain That Money.” “‘We are going into this lawsuit in a very optimistic fashion,’ said Michael D. Hess, the city’s Corporation Counsel, who joined Mr. Giuliani in an afternoon news conference at City Hall. ‘We want to retain that money for the good uses that the city will put it to.’” (Abby Goodnough, “Giuliani Files Lawsuit Challenging Tax Repeal,” The New York Times, 6/3/99)

Mayor Giuliani Said That Suburbanites “Should Feel An Obligation” To Pay The Tax. “On his weekly WABC radio show, Giuliani said that suburbanites ‘should feel an obligation to make a contribution to the city that is doing a lot for them.’” (Robert Hardt Jr., “Albany Tax Slash Has City Weighing Layoffs,” New York Post, 5/22/99)

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Sued Republicans In Albany So He Could Keep The Commuter Tax:

Mayor Giuliani Immediately Threatened Legal Action In Order To Keep The Commuter Tax. “A spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani said tonight that he would file suit to retain the tax, maintaining that the state cannot end it without the permission of the city.” (Clifford J. Levy, “Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters,” The New York Times, 5/13/99)

* Mayor Giuliani: “We Will Challenge It. We Will Go To Court And We Will Win.” (Gregg Birnbaum, “Rudy Goes To War With Albany,” New York Post, 5/14/99)

Governor Pataki Signed The Repeal Into Law, Despite Giuliani’s Protests. “Gov. George Pataki signed the law eliminating New York City’s commuter tax yesterday at the Rockville Centre train station, much to the delight of hometown state Sen. Dean Skelos, who for more than a decade championed calls to remove the tax.” (Monte R. Young, “Pataki Signs Commuter Tax Repeal,” [New York] Newsday, 5/28/99)

Mayor Giuliani Filed A Lawsuit Challenging The State’s Authority To Repeal The Tax. “Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and City Council Speaker Peter Vallone joined forces and filed a lawsuit yesterday to challenge the Legislature’s repeal of the city’s commuter tax, insisting the measure was unconstitutional… The suit argues the Legislature passed the measure too quickly and did not receive city permission in what’s called a Home Rule message.” (Liz Willen, “City Sues Over Tax Repeal,” [New York] Newsday, 6/3/99)

The State Supreme Court Rejected Mayor Giuliani’s Argument And Ruled The Entire Tax Unconstitutional. “A Manhattan judge on Friday, in effect, rewrote the state law repealing the New York City commuter tax, an action which authorities said could cost the city more than $360 million a year. Supreme Court Justice Barry Cozier said the law, which repealed the payroll tax only for state residents but left it intact for out-of-state commuters, was unconstitutional. His ruling means the tax is eliminated for all commuters…Cozier agreed with lawyers for New Jersey, Connecticut and two private individuals that the new tax law, scheduled to take effect July 1, violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs had argued that taxing some commuters and not others was unfair to those who still would be forced to pay. The judge rejected the city’s argument that the law is special legislation requiring a so-called home-rule message before any change is made. A home-rule message is a request from the city to the state to alter a law affecting city affairs.” (“Judge Eliminates Commuter Tax,” [New York] Newsday, 6/26/99)

FACT: After Losing In Court, Mayor Giuliani Continued To Fight To Keep The Commuter Tax:

The Giuliani Administration Vowed To Appeal The Ruling. “City officials said the court ruling would be appealed.” (“Judge Eliminates Commuter Tax,” [New York] Newsday, 6/26/99)

The New York Court Of Appeals Rejected Mayor Giuliani’s Appeal. “Deepening a financial blow to New York City, the state’s highest court said yesterday that state lawmakers acted within their authority last year when they repealed a city tax on commuters and that the ‘discriminatory’ income tax still levied on out-of-state commuters must also be ended. That means out-of-state commuters will be reimbursed for the city tax they’ve paid retroactive to July 1 of last year, when the repeal for in-state commuters took effect. The city had collected the 0.45 percent tax since 1966.” (Kara Blond, “Court Of Appeals Kill City’s Commuter Tax,” [New York] Newsday, 4/5/00)


“Sometimes, I wonder what it’s gonna take, to find dignity.” –Bob Dylan

Dignity. What does dignity mean to you? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines dignity as:

  1. “The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”
  2. “Inherent nobility and worth: the dignity of honest labor.”
  1. “Poise and self-respect.”
  2. “Stateliness and formality in manner and appearance.
  • “The respect and honor associated with an important position.
  • “A high office or rank.”
  • “Archaic A dignitary.”

  • Presidential. How do you define presidential? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines presidential as:

    1. “Of or relating to a president or the presidency.”
    2. “Befitting a president, especially the office of the President of the United States: criticized the candidate for not looking presidential.”
  • “Of or relating to a political system in which the chief officer is a president who is elected independently of the legislature for a fixed term: a presidential government.”
  • Based on those definitions, or whatever the terms dignity and presidential happen to mean to you personally, do you think that this or this

    meets either standard? Or have we collectively become a movement in which it is not necessary for our presidential candidate to be dignified or presidential?

    Much has been made of the fact that Ronald Reagan held the dignity of the office of the Presidency in such high esteem. In fact, the man respected it so much that he refused to take off his suit coat in the in the Oval Office. Conversely, Bill Clinton obviously did not care about the dignity of his office, as evidenced by his personal actions and was condemned for it by our party faithful. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t that what we on the Right considered his cardinal sin? In addition to his legal wrongs and incorrect policy decisions, we took extreme issue with the fact that the man threw away the dignity of the Presidency and of the United States of America with his conduct.

    As Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani engaged in the above referenced behavior for the sake of simple humor while sacrificing his dignity. Those are not the only instances of behavior on his part, and neither is he the only candidate that is known to have behaved in an undignified manner.

    Do we as a country, or as Republicans or Conservatives, want to sacrifice our dignity yet again? Or do we want a candidate that will unquestionably uphold the dignity of the party, of the office he holds, and of the United States of America?

    AFA Blasts Rudy with Poll

    The AFA (American Family Association), one of the largest social conservative advocacy groups, just sent out a poll to its massive email list (P. Ruffini estimates its to be about 3.2 million - surpassing

    Here’s a quick snapshot of the email I received:

    click to enlarge

    The poll currently (found here) is running 25 to 1 against Rudy.

    Together with the Dobson slam… is this the SoCon death knell for Rudy? Will FRC weigh in more heavily? Or does this demonstrate the waning influence of the SoCons as they vie for their key issues among of host of unknown and unfriendly Presidential candidates?

    Souring on Rudy, too?

    Douglas Schoen says that Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee. Shoen looks at the state polls and sees a bleak picture for Giuliani. Based on the current picture of state polling, Giuliani faces the very real prospect of not winning a single state before Feb. 5:

    No biggie, Giuliani’s people argue - they are sitting in the catbird’s seat when Feb. 5 rolls around. That’s the day a half dozen big states go to the polls. But while Giuliani holds leads now in major, moderate states such as New York, Florida, California, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois, politics is like pool: The first shot changes the next one. If Giuliani loses to Romney in the first three states and to Thompson in South Carolina, a strong Super Tuesday showing is a fantasy.

    This is a theme that I’ve been playing with for some time now. Admittedly, I am no electoral analyst, but even a cursory look at the history of electoral politics shows that Giuliani is tempting fate by banking on these large states. Says Lary Sabato in his latest entry over at the Crystal Ball (his emphasis):

    Mesmerized by the numbers in fairly meaningless national surveys that mainly measure name identification and personal familiarity, the DC doyens cannot stop talking at their Georgetown cocktail parties and on their TV shows about the all-New York match-up (maybe Michael Bloomberg, too, they add excitedly). We’ll see. Maybe it will end up that way, but if it does, it will be because the Empire State candidates win the campaign starting this month. Real people, even most activist voters, do not make up their mind on presidential choice until they have to do so. In Iowa and New Hampshire, still the most crucial nominating states despite all the tinkering with the schedule, voters are tough-minded and wonderfully heartless in picking the people who probably will be the general election standard-bearers. We look forward to some egg-on-face retrospectives on mainstream media coverage if those influential early voters decide to ignore the Beltway script. Should Hillary and Rudy both fall, it will be omelet-on-face treatment.

    Rudy’s Fiscal Record

    He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes…

    That’s the official line according to Rudy’s website. Cesar Conda, former assistant for domestic policy under Vice President Cheney begs to differ:

    “Upon closer inspection, however, Giuliani?s record on taxes isn’t as conservative as advertised. In fact, a nonpartisan independent organization found that Mayor Giuliani actually opposed significant tax cuts, and would have denied hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief for New Yorkers had he gotten his way.

    “, which is run by the non-partisan Annenberg School at the University Of Pennsylvania, has pointed out that Mayor Giuliani fought Republican efforts to kill the city’s commuter tax [$360 million annual], and actually went to court to keep it alive.”

    “In another instance, reported that Giuliani strenuously opposed a personal-income-tax-rate cut amounting to $469 million – but now claims credit for it as one of the 23 taxes he cut.”

    “Moreover, [Giuliani's] refusal to sign Americans for Tax Reform?s ‘Taxpayer Protection Pledge’ raises serious doubts among economic conservatives about his commitment to keeping income-tax rates low.

    All in all, while Rudy claims to have cut or eliminated taxes 23 times for a total of $9 billion dollars (and at times his campaign has claimed $9.8 billion), he actually can only claim to initiating 15 tax cuts for a total of $5.4 billion dollars. To put this in proper perspective, let’s dig a little more:

    When he took office in 1994, Giuliani was indeed facing a $2.3 billion deficit for the next fiscal year. But Giuliani’s last budget, issued in May 2001 – before 9/11 – for fiscal 2002, projected a deficit of nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003, the first budget year the new mayor would face. The IBO estimated the deficit would be even larger, about $3.3 billion. In reality, thanks to 9/11, the budget hole turned out to be around $5 billion.

    And let’s not forget the city debt. When Rudy came into office, he inherited $26.6 billion of general obligation loans. When he left, that number was at $43 billion and climbing. The increase in debt, $16.4 billion, was over 3 TIMES THE CUTS IN TAXES over the same period. Borrowing rose at about 5 percent each of the last five Giuliani years. Currently, NYC pays roughly 10.4% of its total $59 billion budget and 17% of its tax revenue EVERY YEAR to cover the interest on a $51 billion debt (PDF warning). Using those numbers as a model, the debt that Rudy was directly responsible for ($16.4 billion) cost the city in the neighborhood of $6.5 billion dollars over his eight years in office, over a billion dollars more than the tax relief during the same period.

    So, to summarize the points here…

    1. Rudy left the city with a $2.7 billion greater single-year budget shortfall than he found it ($1 billion if you don’t count 9/11).

    2. Rudy actually lowered taxes by $4.4 billion LESS than his campaign has claimed.

    3. During the booming 1990′s, Rudy borrowed an additional $16.4 billion on city debt, costing New Yorkers over a billion dollars more than their tax cuts to just pay the interest.

    Giuliani’s Record on Terrorism

    Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner this evening:

    So I finally read Wayne Barrett’s Giuliani takedown in the Village Voice (I linked to it a while ago). It goes through Giuliani’s five big lies about 9/11. The first three are, if true, pretty devastating. It appears that Barrett’s reporting was pretty meticulous. But he does have an axe to grind —see this Barrett hit on Giuliani’s personal life, for example—so I’m not sure whether he is leaving anything out that exculpates Giuliani.

    Having thus far read through the first three (out of five) topics, and even keeping in mind that there is no love lost between Barrett and the former Mayor, devastating is exactly the word I would choose for it. It will be interesting to see whether Team Giuliani addresses these concerns head on, or hopes they can worry about it after the GOP primary.