Posted on 11/15/2006 7:30:55 AM PST by 300magnum
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys "a lot of good will" from Republicans from his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but his stance on social issues like abortion and gun control make him an unacceptable candidate in the 2008 presidential election, according to conservative analysts.
Giuliani, who announced Monday that he has filed papers to form an exploratory committee as the first step towards a White House run, is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances" as a presidential candidate, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, told Cybercast News Service.
"The core values of the Republican Party with respect to life issues -- which is where our main concern is -- and the issues of the homosexual movement, etc., cause his candidacy for the nomination to just be dead in the water," she said.
Giuliani has described himself as "pro-choice" and said he would not support a ban on partial-birth abortions. He promoted gun control programs and civil unions for same-sex partners during his two terms as New York City mayor.
While serving in that post, Giuliani saw his private life become a regular subject of media scrutiny, especially in 2000, when he announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his second wife without first telling her of his decision.
"Despite Giuliani's charm and his obvious leadership abilities, as far as social and cultural issues are concerned, not only his personal life but his public views make him unacceptable," Parro said.
Supporters of a Giuliani bid launched a group a year ago called Draft Rudy Giuliani for President.
Co-founder Nicholas Tyszka said in a statement this week that, "with the current climate [of divisiveness] in Washington," Giuliani would be an excellent nominee, as "he has such a broad base of appeal, even cutting across political lines."
The group, whose other co-founder is veteran Republican political consultant Allen Fore, said that "America needs and wants this great man to lead our nation."
"Named Time Magazine's 'Person of the Year' in 2001, Rudy Giuliani has been a proven leader during one of the toughest periods in American history," the organization's website states.
"Giuliani exemplifies leadership, courage and compassion," it says. "Rudy Giuliani has dedicated his professional life to serving the United States, including assistant attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department under President Reagan and as the crime-fighting U.S. attorney in the state of New York.
"He has an unrivaled record of honesty and integrity, always putting the people's interest above politics," the website continues. "His service as mayor of New York City, particularly after the devastating terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001, made him America's mayor. Now it's time to make him America's president."
Although forming an exploratory committee does not guarantee that an individual will run for president, Giuliani's announcement Monday drew a quick response from the Democratic National Committee:
"It's unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just 'explain away' the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear," said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney in a press statement.
"Throughout his career, Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate, but now that he's vying for his party's nomination, will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far right?" Finney asked.
The DNC also issued a speedy response after Sen. John McCain made a similar announcement on Sunday.
Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that "it's going to be virtually impossible for Giuliani to woo voters who put the Second Amendment and family values as their top issues."
However, Giuliani "clearly has a lot of good will with Republicans, and his goal should be to shore up his conservative credentials on the issues of federal spending and anti-terrorism," Darling said.
Since he was mayor of New York City during 9/11, Giuliani "can trumpet anti-terrorism as one of his major policies. But he also needs to talk about limiting the federal government and restricting out-of-control federal spending so he can shore up support among conservatives who care about pocketbook issues," Darling said.
While acknowledging that Giuliani is "a presumptive front-runner" for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Darling said the former mayor is enjoying good poll numbers "merely because he has high name recognition."
Strong approval figures don't guarantee victories when the party's primaries begin, Darling noted.
"Just ask [early 2004 Democratic front-runner] Howard Dean about that," he said.
We need someone who will dismantle the IRS, fire every IRS employee(as with a gun), abolish the income tax and refund all federal income taxes going back to the last 10 years. Then replace the Federal income tax with a 2% across the board military tax. Do we have such a candidate ?
Duncan who?
(I know who he is, but that will be the sound heard over the rooftops as he announces his candidacy)
People say he's more electable.
Would he win NY? Probably not now, against Hillary. PA? Pullleeze. NJ? Maybe. Other than that, I can't think of any state he'd win that no other Republican candidate couldn't.
Two liberal New York lawyers with fancy Madison Avenue designer labels... No thanks...
"Despite my misgivings about many on the Christian Right, your comparison of these people to the Nazis (the rush to frog march the abortionists to the ovens) is ridiculous"
That was sarcasm. My bad, I should have put a tag on it, although there are many that would consider that a fine idea.
"What opponents to social conservatives have done is a type of reverse McCarthyism, not unlike Clinton's tactics in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, blaming conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for the militia movement with which Timothy McVeigh was associated."
Ummm, aren't we doing the same thing here? I mean, here we are discussing a guy who wore a dress as a gag, and has a sordid personal life, and the gist of the debate is that "he's no conservative". No conservative could POSSIBLY do things like that and still be worthy of the label, right?
McCarthyism isn't just a battlecry for democrats; there's plenty here who engage in it every day, the only difference is that we're not talking about communism, but by a self-appointed moral elite.
Thank you for the short history of the conservative movement and the Christian Right, but my issue with Christian voters (confession: I'm an agnostic, or rather, a lapsed catholic), is that it's perfectly fine for your faith to shape both your politics and your morals, it's just that when these become the overriding concerns, your judgement tends to become a bit skewed. At some point, people simply must divorce their religion from their politics or else the distinction becomes blurred; failure to do so results (in the extreme) in what used to rule Afghanistan, and what currently rules Iran. Not everything should be viewed through the lens of religion. Why, if our European ancestors had not learned that lesson 7 or 800 years ago, there quite possibly wouldn't even BE a United States for us to argue about. After all, the Catholic Church said there couldn't be another continent to the west, didn't they? It's a good thing a lot of folks didn't take God's word, as translated by fallible men, to be the only possible truth in the universe.
When religion rules all, mankind makes very few advances. Just look at the present Middle East and you'll see it for yourself.
"This is no time to compromise, and, humanly speaking, the time is short. The modern conservative movement is about 55 years old, and it has not accomplished William Buckley's stated goal: the thwarting of the liberal agenda. To be sure, the conservative factions need to be unified, and Christian conservatives in particular need to divorce themselves from so-called big government conservatism and inattention to economic matters. Without a short-term reversal of the longstanding movement toward socialism, moral degeneracy, and loss of national sovereignty, this nation is headed toward disaster. The only rational response is then every man for himself."
I don't disagree with you, completely, in this regard. The question I have to ask, though, is who decided that Christianity is the best (or at least the "least-worst")system for addressing these issues? No one asked for my opinion. Did you get the questionaire? Quite frankly, there's an awful lot that Christianity and conservatism stand for which is A-OK with me, but conversely, if either had full sway we'd never move forward on anything at anytime. As for Mr. Buckley, he's the one who described a conservative as someone who (paraphrasing) "stands in front of the freight train of history, yelling STOP!" (actually, I think it was Kristol and WFB just repeats it an awful lot). If you ask me, that's pretty much sums it up; if conservatism actually accomplished everything it said it would, progress (on a variety of fronts) would come to a dead halt. Logically, it stands not for progress (and the same can be said of progressivism, despite the label), but for a reversal of historical forces and trends, hence all the talk about "turning back the clock".
At what point do conservatives figure they've turned it back far enough?
The purpose of any regime, whether conservative or progressive, is to achieve a point at which it is at the height of their power and prowess, and then freeze history at exactly that point (like taking a snapshot) and then ruling in a continuous "present". This has been the trend of governments, both benevolent and malign, since the days of the Roman Republic. If you wish to live in a country that stagnates in that fashion, then you are free to do so. However, allow me my right, please, to make it slightly more difficult for you.
"I see...so unity is good unless it's a conservativce candidate."
Define conservative.
Do we mean law-and-order-fiscally-responsible-free-market-supporting-low-tax-pro-growth-individual-rights-defending- constitution-loving-conservative? Or are we talking about the never-had-an-idea-that-didn't-originate-in-scripture-kill-the-gays-government-should-enforce-our-version-of-morality conservative?
That's the argument, as I see it. And before you answer back with the predictable "we can have both", no, we realistically can't. You certainly won't get both (and for some, it's questionable as to whether we'll get either)with McCain, Romney, Brownback and every other non-entity, stuffed shirt who's name has been tossed about.
Compromise is a fact of life. Get used to it.
"Pretty hard to converse in the classical sense, it is a dead language here."
True, but there's always a chance that someone might accidentally get educated.
Wallace, I just want to ask a question and then perhaps we can consider the issue in a different light.
In the old days, European Monarchs derived their right to rule from the concept of "Divine Right of God" (actually, it's because they owned a monopoly of force, but propaganda is not a modern invention, you know). This set up a symbiotic relationship between monarch and official church (what better way for a church to maintain it's own power and prestige than to back the guy with the money and weapons, right?), and no one could achieve a position of political power without a) having the favor of the King, and b) belonging to the official religion.
If I recall, the American Revolution was, in part, fought to break such a system (in other words, to create a society which was more egalitarian and fairer, or, if you like, more LIBERAL), a system which could only result (so the theorists said) in tyrrany.
When you make the argument that conservatism and religion are linked, are you advocating a return to those days, in a more modern fashion, where worthiness for political office depends solely upon belonging to a special clique (a self-appointed elite with it's own personal viewpoints and interests, i.e. Social Conservatives) and membership in an religious organization or espousal of certain religious beliefs?
Because it sounds as if you are leaning that way. If I have misunderstood, please explain where I went wrong. Thanks!
Throughout the primaries, the same old "Republicans" complained that if conservatives were selected they would lose against liberals in the general election.
For "electability's sake" we were told that liberal and moderate Republicans had to be chosen in the primaries.
Liberal and moderate Republicans were chosen.
AND LOST
Now those same old "Republicans" are claiming we didn't run left enough...despite the fact that many of the Democrats elected were elected by running TO THE RIGHT of those Republicans.
So...Why all the hate against winning elections?
We followed your compromise in the last election.
Your philosophy is a losing philosophy.
Facts are facts...get used to them.
No one followed "my philosophy" prior to the last election, which could be why Nancy Pelosi is now Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader.
Since social conservatives run this party --- there is no candidate for national or federal office who can stand for election without running to the right in a primary --- "my philosophy" hasn't actually been tried. Anyone who espouses "my philosophy" never gets to run. Instead, we have candidates who have had to pass YOUR smell test (i.e. they told you what you wanted to hear),and who have consequently been neither moral nor conservative.
The result? Rampant spending, an unresponsive government (that's okay: those folks swimming in sewage were only black democrats), a reshuffling of the org chart which masquerades as the Department of Homeland Security (two lies for the price of one), a war that is being run exactly like the losing proposition in Vietnam, tax cuts with an expiration date, a prescription drug program for the two wealthiest retired generations in human history, no revamp of the social security system that will bankrupt us sooner rather than later, an unfunded, 700-mile-long fence across a 2,000-mile-long border.
But that's okay; GWB said Jesus was his favorite "political philosopher" (with a straight face, no less!) and all them Abramoff-bought-and-sold Congresscritters "fought" to save Terri and "gave" us "conservative justices" (how's that working out so far?).
If that's what your way has to offer, forever and anon, then you can keep it.
Name a social conservative who is running the party.
Which republican campaigns ran to the right in the general election?
And...I am calling you a flat-out LIAR by claiming we had candidates who had to be conservative so stop whining.
You ran liberal and moderate Republicans and you lost. Full Stop.
Some conservatives lost, true, but most of those had other issues and few of them ran as conservatives. You're unfreaking believable and I don't want you working with me because you do work against conservatives.
"Name a social conservative who is running the party."
Tell you what; if we go through this next primary cycle without a single candidate making the de riguer campaign stops at Bob Jones University and none are photographed at events with Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and Oral Roberts, then I will concede the point to you.
" Which republican campaigns ran to the right in the general election? "
Are you serious? Where have you been living for the last 30 years or so?
"And...I am calling you a flat-out LIAR by claiming we had candidates who had to be conservative so stop whining."
So, you called me a liar. Am I supposed to be sufficiently cowed now? What's next" Do you say "you're outed, Lefty" or "your busted, you Commie" and then declare victory? I can hardly be called a liar for repeating the fact that social conservatives rule the primary process and artificially shape the field of candidates, while you consider the article put forward in this post as bible truth. You did read the part where a right-to-lifer and a democrat both said that Rudy can't get past the social conservatives and therefore didn't have a chance? You apparently agree wholeheartedly with that assessment and somehow, I've lied to you? Either the article confirms what is already known, or it is an ouright fabrication.
If it's a confrmation or reality, then I can't have lied, and Rudy Guliani should sail clean through the primaries and stand for election as President of the United States. If it's a complete fabrication, then I must have lied, and subsequently, Rudy Guliani can still be considered a serious contender, and this subject is moot. Make up your mind which view the original article is putting forward, please, and then get back to me.
"You ran liberal and moderate Republicans and you lost. Full Stop"
I didn't run anyone, personally. And my "liberal and moderate republican" congresscritter won (Vito Fossella). My conservative senatorial candidate (he had the conservative party endorsement) lost by nearly 40 points, to the Hildebeest. But I must be liying about that too, huh?
"Some conservatives lost, true, but most of those had other issues and few of them ran as conservatives. You're unfreaking believable and I don't want you working with me because you do work against conservatives."
Other issues? Like perhaps violating every principle that can be considered conservative, maybe? Fine if you don;t want to work with me, since I'm not particularly fond of having you in my foxhole, either. As for "working against conservatives" this is hardly true; I haven't yet seen a conservative worth backing that hasn't spent his time grovelling before the Church crowd first. I find this personally repugnant: he/she is standing for election to do the greatest good for the COUNTRY as a whole, and not for a selected segment simply because it can provide campaign cash and organized voting blocs. As far as I'm concerned, you'll never legislate morality, you'll never overturn Roe by packing the court, and if you keep voting for self-interested liars and thieves wrapped in the conservative mantle, you will continue to be disappointed.
How about we listen to someone else for a while here? Is the possibility that Guliani might have something to say which might perhaps turn a few heads such a frightening possibility?
Need to check my grammar, sometimes. This:
"If it's a confrmation or reality, then I can't have lied, and Rudy Guliani should sail clean through the primaries and stand for election as President of the United States."
Should read:
"....Then I can't have lied and Rudy Giulinain SHOULDN'T sail clean through the primaries..."
My bad.
Yeah, I'm serious.
We had two campaigns that might arguable be said to be Republicans running as conservatives. Ronald Reagan's 2nd term (He was expected to be moderate/liberal during his 1st election) and the Newt Gingrich Revolution.
Yes...even Santorum failed to run as a conservative. The two issues on which he campaigned *as* a conservative, he was upstaged by the *conservative* views of the Democrat running against him.
So you're in New York as well, eh?
Geeze.
You'd have the same sort of liberals running the New York "republican" Party in control, running Washington.
Rudy Giuliani is no conservative.
Yes, some candidates considered "conservative" did indeed violate a number of issues that would be considered conservative issues.
However, we're not purists here.
Fossella *is* a conservative...so that begs the question...why do you want liberal Republicans in areas that are more conservative than your stomping grounds on the border of NYC?
No worries...when tempers rise, spelling errors and grammatical problems tend to find a way into posts.
Oh...and I have no problem electing, in the primaries and in the general election, anyone at least as conservative as Fossella.
Feel better?
UNACCEPTABLE. If it's Rudy there's no reason to vote.
I will NOT vote for some slimeball that wants to confiscate guns.
Yet it was this same group that disestablished the Anglican church in many colonies, forbade the Federal government from establishing a state religion, and established freedom of religion even for minority religions like Quakerism and Catholicism. The views of the Founders are what are in need of restoration.
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.