Posted on 08/21/2006 6:16:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The S.C. Republican Party’s sponsorship of “An Evening Honoring Rudy Giuliani” last week spoke volumes.
It reflected what some said is a shift in attitude toward GOP candidates with more liberal views on social issues.
There’s a greater degree of tolerance and acceptance, party officials said.
Giuliani, who rose to national prominence for his take-charge performance after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, supports gay rights, gun control and legalized abortion, which puts him at odds with most Republicans.
Nevertheless, he has traveled the country extensively on behalf of GOP candidates this year while acknowledging his own interest in a possible 2008 presidential bid.
Although his liberal stance on social issues is likely to disqualify him with religious conservatives, the former New York City mayor remains in great demand as a speaker before Republican groups.
In this visit — his first major political trip to South Carolina — Giuliani attended a fundraiser for conservative GOP congressional candidate Ralph Norman, the one-term state representative who is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. John Spratt, a 24-year House veteran in a hotly contested race in the 5th District.
Giuliani ended the day in Charleston at a star-studded $2,500-a-couple fundraiser for the state Republican Party.
He packed the place.
“Rudy is a very popular figure,” GOP chairman Katon Dawson said. “We didn’t have any problem with him coming.”
Giuliani, affectionately known as “America’s mayor,” is seen as middle-of-the-road by most voters nationally, according to Rasmussen Reports, an electronic survey company.
It found 36 percent of Americans see him as a political moderate, 29 percent said conservative, and 15 percent said liberal. Twenty percent are not sure.
Former state GOP chairman Barry Wynn said the party needs to take a fresh look at the way it regards new voters, especially those new residents who’ve settled along the coast and are starting to have an impact on state party politics.
Those voters tend to be more progressive in outlook and are more inclined to support someone like Giuliani.
“I think Rudy could be more popular in South Carolina than most people would think,” Wynn said.
The debate in 2008 isn’t going to be about tax cuts, abortion or Social Security reform — Republican favorites.
“The overarching issues this time will be national security and leadership,” Wynn said. “Everything else will fit under that.”
Such a scenario favors Giuliani, Greenville consultant Chip Felkel said.
Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a GOP activist, said Giuliani is in a “special category.”
He’s a “glittering personality” with star quality who can get away with supporting legalized abortion and gay rights.
His position on those social issues “would not hurt him as bad over the long haul as one may think. If John McCain had the same position, it would hurt him a lot worse.”
Needless to say, the hard-core religious right won’t surrender territory on social issues. They’d rather go down in flames than win.
But unless terrorists no longer are a threat to the United States, national security and leadership will be at the top of the issues heap in 2008.
Voters won’t be concerned about gay rights or abortion. What matters most will be their own security in a volatile world.
And the candidate who stands to benefit is Giuliani.
“If your house is on fire,” Wynn said, “you want a guy with the hose.”
No more big government statists will get my vote.
If his wives can't trust him why should we?
I wouldn't vote for Newt either. I don't vote for public adulterers who betray their families. We can do better than that.
(Chortle) Gotta be careful how you use the word "member" if gays are listening.
Same with using the term "point of entry." Get's 'em all het up. LOL.
No. Which means that only the most obstinate fringers would sit on their hands on election day, while the rest of the GOP, lots of moderates, and not a few Democrats would vote for Guliani overwhelmingly.
Do the Christians on the right think that God doesn't care about social issues.
Is there a relationship between a countries position on social/religious issues and "being threatened or attacked"?
If a country is "threatened or attacked" is that an act of God in the eyes of Christians or is it simply a natural event?
To many Christians social issues have more to do with a countries security than any other issue. Me included.
The base already supports him. He leads every poll, over McCain, and Allen and everybody else.
If it's Guliani or Hillary, he'll be nominated and he'll win the election.
If the lack of concern about "social issues" means we are willing to become more and more wicked as a society, that IMO is just as much a threat to our security as the Islamists.
If the Republicans decide to throw overboard one part of the Republican coalition (social conservatives, in this case), it is unlikely that the Republican candidate will win.
Like George Allen, who's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth?
Go back and look at his track record in New York when it comes to illegal aliens. He openly and proudly proclaimed that he would ignore the 1996 Federal statute that made it explicitly illegal for local governments to implement "sanctuary" policies. (In case you aren't aware of this, a "sanctuary" policy effectively prevents local government employees from cooperating with the INS in identifying and apprehending illegal aliens.)
I never thought I'd see the day when so-called "conservatives" would come here on FreeRepublic and shill for a leftist presidential candidate who ought to be sitting in a Federal prison right now.
Thanks God that there are many more than 5,000 real conservatives in SC who will not vote for Rudy.
I'm safe with using member. He isn't JUST a member, he is PARTNERED.
Their words, not mine.
S.V.A. Honorary Members
(all 14 are supportive, considered and voted upon)
Liz J. Abzug, Rebuild Our Town Downtown, Co-Chair
(www.Abzug.com)
N.Y.C. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
(www.MikeBloomberg.com)
N.Y.C. Councilmember James E. (Jed) Davis, In Memorium
(www.Council.nyc.ny.us)
Congressmember Geraldine A. Ferraro
(www.search.Britannica.com)
Borough President C. Virginia Fields
(www.NewYorkers4Fields.com)
America's Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani
(www.GiulianiPartners.com)
B. Thomas Golisano, Paychex, President
(www.Paychex.com)
N.Y.C. Public Advocate Betsy F. Gotbaum
(www.PubAdvocate.nyc.gov)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
(www.Riverkeeper.org)
Councilmember Margarita L. Lopez
(www.MargaritaLopez.com)
Martha Reeves, Motown Singer & Detroit Councilwoman
(www.STONEWALLvets.org/songsofStonewall-7.htm)
N.Y.S. Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer
(www.Spitzer2006.com)
Steven L. Wesler, R.D.P. Group, President
(www.RDPgroup.com)
N.Y.S. Assemblymember Keith L.Wright
(www.WrightForTheFuture.com)
Dear Jake The Goose,
"Be a part of the crew and you remain a part of the ship."
We may not be much interested in the ship if we think it's being steered to Hell, and we are told that we may not alter its course.
The nomination of Mr. Giuliani would represent total defeat for social conservatives. For folks for whom the social issues are the most fundamental, there is little difference between the potential candidacy of Mr. Giuliani and that of most liberal Democrats.
That's throwing the social conservatives overboard.
If you throw out the party's support of our issues, then you throw us out with it. If the presidential nominee is indistinguishable from the Democrat nominee on key social issues, then we social conservatives have already lost the election.
It doesn't really matter at that point for whom we vote, a liberal has already won.
Whether or not you or anyone feels that social conservatives SHOULD toe the line and vote for someone completely repugnant to ourselves and our consciences, I'm not very interested in shoulds and shouldn'ts. I'm dealing in wills and won'ts.
Social conservatives will not vote overwhelmingly for Mr. Giuliani. Even against Mrs. Clinton. I doubt that Mr. Giuliani will even get a simple majority of the social conservative vote in the general election.
sitetest
N-i-c-e, very nice take.
Rudy was still married to his first wife when he took up with wife #2. He then tried to annul the first marriage----clueless Rudy saying he didn't know his first wife was his cousin. This from the man who wants to handle state secrets (belly laugh).
Rudy then became involved with future wife #3 while still married to wife #2. Not only did Rudy become involved in an adulterous affair while still married---- Rudy showed his contempt for the citizenry, and for established mores, when he insisted his wife move out so he could move his girlfriend into Gracie Mansion.
The windup was that Rudy moved out, and lived with two gay friends while his wife and two kids (who refused to move out) stayed at Gracie Mansion---
No, he is also a problem. I know several of his staffers. I haven't seen anyone yet who I can fully back.
I am begining to think its time to tell the social conservatives to either work with the party, and stop telling everyone how to live their lives.... or
Walk the plank.
I for one am getting a little sick and tired of being preached to.
We're at war overseas - we don't need to be at war at home.
Mind your home - I will mind mine.
If Rudy is pro illegal aliens and for that treasonous amnesty bill the Senate passed, then he not competent or willing to deal with terrorist attacks to this country.
I don't want to ignore the social conservatives.
On the contrary - I want to debate them at every opportunity.
That said - look at this thread - social conservatives are not exactly open to anyone who does not walk in lock step.
Some (not all) socical conservatives are damn scary people.
The President is Commander in Chief - not Preacher in Chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.