Posted on 01/25/2007 8:32:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani's star has hardly dimmed in the five years since terrorists attacked his city on Sept. 11, 2001, and he became a national hero _ the face of U.S. resolve at a time of tragedy.
The Republican dubbed "America's Mayor" hopes to ride that celebrity and his record at City Hall to the White House by emphasizing his leadership skills and embracing the strong-on-security, limited-government tenets of the GOP.
"If he can handle the scrutiny, and if events break his way, sure, he can win," said Fred Siegel, who wrote a Giuliani biography, "The Prince of the City."
Giuliani's quest to capture his party's presidential nomination won't be easy.
He's a moderate Republican from New York City, on the wrong side of social issues in the eyes of hard-core conservatives who are a crucial voting bloc in the primaries. His mayoral tenure was marked by criticism of an overzealous police force. He's linked to the city's scandal-plagued ex-police chief Bernard Kerik. His thicket of business interests could pose conflicts. He's been divorced twice.
"I sure have strengths and weaknesses," Giuliani said recently. "I think that sort of puts me in the same category as just about everybody else that's running. Are my strengths greater or my weaknesses worse? I don't know. You have to sort of examine that. That won't be the issue."
His challenge will be to remind voters of his take-charge attitude on Sept. 11 and his two-term mayoral reign, at the same time his main rivals _ Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney _ no doubt will try to exploit his background and record. For now, both are trying to gauge how much of a threat he may be.
Giuliani, who formed a presidential exploratory committee last year, is betting that the Republican rank-and-file will look past his liabilities. His aides dismiss skeptics who say he has too many flaws to win over primary voters a year from now.
"I believe they'll look at the picture as a whole," said Tony Carbonetti, Giuliani's longtime political adviser. "This (New York) was an unmanageable city, and I think what people want today is a manager, someone to lead in difficult times and to lead in not-difficult times.
"We're going to continue to tell that story," he said.
Before Sept. 11, Giuliani was known as the hard-charging prosecutor-turned-politician who cleaned up Times Square, led the city out of fiscal despair and brought Republican rule back to the liberal mecca.
Giuliani, of course, made enemies in the process, but on Sept. 11 even his chronic critics were muted when he took charge amid the rubble of the World Trade Center's twin towers. To many, he became a picture of strength, a reminder of the resilience of the American spirit.
"He has a connection to that. He is unique. On the other hand you look at the politics and you say this is a problem," said Alex Vogel, a Republican strategist in Washington who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate.
"The question is: Can you win a Republican primary a different way? History keeps saying no. But history has never presented us with someone whose favorability numbers are as high as Rudy's."
Indeed, national polls have consistently shown him leading for the GOP nomination, and early surveys in key states show him ahead or competitive. He travels to one important state, New Hampshire, this weekend where he will give the keynote address at the state GOP's annual meeting.
For all the hype since 2001, Giuliani didn't start preparing for a presidential run in earnest until after November's elections. Thus, he has lagged behind McCain and Romney in courting fundraisers, setting up a national organization and hiring ground operatives in key states, although he has made progress on all fronts recently.
Giuliani's aides insist they're making strides toward filling out his campaign. They say he can raise the $80 million to $100 million necessary this year for a serious run. Name recognition, obviously, isn't an issue.
Neither, his supporters argue, is likability. They say he appeals to people across the political spectrum and in every region of the country, meaning he could expand the general election playing field. That, his backers say, makes him the Republican most likely to beat the presumptive Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Perhaps.
But first he has to capture the GOP nomination _ and the big question is whether he can win over enough Republicans in states like Iowa and South Carolina, among the first nominating contests where voters are solid conservatives and could be turned off by his stance on social issues.
"Giuliani is going to have to convince people that he's more conservative than his record otherwise would suggest," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The former mayor's support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control conflict with the hard-line positions of the GOP's right. His supporters say he's not as liberal on those issues as he's made out to be. Still, he's from New York _ and that alone rankles the party's conservative wing.
Despite that, Giuliani's backers contend _ and some Republican strategists agree _ that he could get support from fiscal conservatives because of his record of cutting taxes, curbing spending and promoting small government, particularly now when the base is smarting over the soaring federal deficit under Republicans.
And, with the country still at war, his link to Sept. 11 _ the brand of a strong leader _ could trump the base's concerns about his background and stand on social issues.
"Giuliani's national security credentials will allow him to span ideological divides in the Republican Party and win conservative votes," said Greg Strimple, a GOP strategist in New York who is neutral in the race.
Unknown is whether Giuliani can woo enough of those base Republican voters to win the nomination and, if not, whether he can make up the difference by attracting independents and Democrats.
"His opening could come if people really think that somebody like Hillary is running away with it, and if there's a perception that only Giuliani can beat her," said John Truscott, an unaffiliated Republican strategist in Michigan.
Another factor that could help Giuliani is how the primary calendar shakes out.
New Hampshire and Michigan hold early contests, and New Jersey, California, Illinois, Florida and other states viewed as more hospitable to a moderate may schedule their votes earlier in the year, perhaps lessening the importance of a strong showing for Giuliani in Iowa and South Carolina.
For all the obstacles, even folks with ties to Giuliani's opponents can't deny that the New Yorker has a shot.
Said Ken Khachigian of California, who served as a strategist for President Reagan and was with McCain in 2000: "I would never sell Giuliani short."
Don't be smug and hateful.
It was worse just before the midterms. It's funny how folks think that clever insults and intentionally missing the point and intent of a thread reply is somehow persuasive.
Frankly, I think these guys are doing more harm than good, which might just well be what their intent is. Seriously, these people are unwilling to cede ANYTHING and are willing (and, seemingly ANXIOUS) to lop off a LARGE voting bloc of the Republican party in some ill thought out purge.
The presidential election is a year and a half away, and it's simply amazing how animated these people are... to the point of outright hysteria. Having been an active member of FR for so long, I don't think I have seen it so bad.
In a number of threads just before the midterms, some jokers kept telling me that "they didn't NEED my vote" because I expressed dismay over the way the borders were being handled (and some joker will probably say it again in this thread because I live in a "solid blue state"). Well, they got my vote anyway, but for every one of me who "held their nose" there were probably two or three others who were insulted by their vitriol and voted accordingly.
So I figure that I'll let them have their little online tantrums and save myself the headaches of trying to discuss anything with them. It's gotten to the point of irrationality and I just don't need the hassle anymore.
Anyway, fight the good fight and good luck.
APf
Now they say they'll vote for Hillary. And in doing so never consider that they are hypocrites. What happened to their lofty principles?
Advancing principles and advancing the GOP isn't necessarily the same thing. Some believe a short term loss can advance a long term gain. While not everyone can agree with using this tactic politically, it's used everywhere else. For instance, Ford is buying out thousands of workers. This will cost dearly now but should save money long term.
I have an aunt, she claims to be an independent. Her biggest fear with the GOP is that it's too pro-life. She claims to be pro-choice, while her husband is pro-life, and has been a GOP voter since before Nixon was president, and he had no regrets voting for Nixon.
Yes. The model already exists. It was applied in Germany in the 1930's against one particular group. It will be applied again against Christians.
That is what will happen.
That is why Rudy must not get the nomination.
Don't forget the Perot drain ... and now we face the Libertarian drain ... what a sewer.
I am opposed to those who bash and trash - people who seem to care only about themselves and whether or not they get their way. There is so much more to it, imo.
Of course, I don't live in a blue state. I live in Utah and we have a lot of success with conservative ideas here. Do you believe that the social issues are the pervue of the states?
No, I would rather put forth a conservative prolife candidate. I don't buy the notion that only Rudy can beat Hillary or whoever. I also don't trust Rudy to nominate conservative judges.
The WOT and safety of this nation from an infiltration of terrorists and illegals is at the top of my list. Once we're all dead, everything else won't matter.
I fail to see how calling him an enemy of many Conservative issues is "savaging."
"Savaging" is calling him gay, or harping on his divorces, or calling him stupid, or suggesting he's done dispicable things he has not done.
I have not done that.
Ah.
So You'd gladly support a Marxist, if we had one, if they'd nuke Mecca, eh?
No thanks.
There is a difference between values voters and some of the social conservatives today. Values voters of 1980, 1984, and 1988 didn't threaten to stay home and not vote. They voted against Dukakis in 1988. The real problems started with Pat Robertson running in 1988 against then sitting VP Bush and it really reared its ugly head in 1992 with Buchanan and then Perot. Evangelicals supported Perot in big numbers where I lived in TX even though Pres Bush won TX. Then in 1996, they did it again. In 2000, Pres Bush was not conservative enough for evangelicals so they stayed home in large numbers and we almost lost again. Republicans quit reaching out to other voting groups that had been part of many coalitions to depend on SC's and it bit us in 1992/1996 and almost in 2000. We cannot allow it to happen again in 2008. 2006 has taught a lot of us a lesson that we need more diversity in our voters so we can depend on them to vote and not beg them to vote or pander. We are losing younger voters who are tuning out social issues and want security.
People like me have had it with anyone threatening not to vote or staying home. In the primary, I will fight like heck for my candidate of choice, but come election night when the official candidate has the necessary votes, I will roll up my sleeve and go help them out. I will not give aid and comfort to a Dem or 3rd Party candidate period. I am lifelong Conservative Republican who believes in winning. Many SC do believe winning doesn't matter all that much because there is always next time. Putting the Clintons back in the WH would cost this Nation dearly and that is exactly what you advocated if Rudy is the nominee. That I take exception to because putting social issues over the security of our Country is not a smart answer IMO.
You want us to lose -- no thank you! We lost George Allen who was probably our best shot outside Rudy but then some of you didn't like what he had to say when asked about his young daughter and abortion so he wouldn't have been good enough either. Where were the social conservatives in the Allen race?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! :-)
Course not. You're voting for Hillary, and I'm not going to attempt to change your mind. Maybe tell you what the consequences of that brings, but I certainly won't dissuade you from voting.
LOL, nopardons ... you are still up. :)
Show time. See ya tomorry.
I wasn't the one who said I was voting for Hillary. She's as Marxist as Marxist gets.
When Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Dobson started making themselves the voices of the social conservatives and Republican leadership decided to pander and ended finding out that pandering doesn't work. Now we have the DemocRATs back in power.
You're learning the wrong lessons, possibly based on your local situation. The GOP has done very little for the soc-cons. On top of that, a majority of soc-cons are also fiscal conservatives. I'm sure we can agree that the GOP hasn't made great gains there at least on the spending side. The democrats are back in power because they at least talked to the right of the republicans regarding ethics and corruption as well as overspending. You and I know that the dems didn't really mean it but they fooled enough moderates to tip the scales. If you fiscal only Republicans want to keep the soc-cons happy without doing all the social stuff then return that junk to the state and local level. Get rid of dept. of education etc.
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.