Posted on 02/15/2007 10:12:09 AM PST by meg88
Pundits of all political persuasions have been chattering about whether Rudy Giuliani, whose name is invariably modified by the description "social liberal," can overcome the objections of many religious conservatives to win the Republican nomination.
Will his assurances to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito and Scalia be "enough" to put their concerns to rest? Will conservatives overlook social issues in an election focusing largely on foreign policy?
The more interesting question is whether Giuliani can establish a new description of what it means to be "socially conservative." Perhaps to be socially conservative means something more than just fidelity to pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions.
Giuliani has a convincing argument that he is an ethical or cultural conservative who in the end will protect the values that most conservative Republicans hold dear.
What does this mean? It means that he sees the world as a battle between good and evil, and politics as a struggle between decent hard working people and elites who have too little respect for their values -- public safety, respect for religion and public virtue.
His world view is not one of multi-culturalism or moral relativism. He shows no empathy for bullies -- be they Mafia bosses or Al Sharpton. Giuliani, of course, first rose to public prominence by fighting the largest bully he could find: the Mob. Time magazine called his prosecution in 1985 of 11 Mafia leaders the "Case of Cases" and quoted his declared intention to "wipe out the five families."
For him, it is all about who is good and who is not, regardless of whose feathers he might ruffle.
Liberal sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and diplomatic niceties did not prevent him from tossing Yasser Arafat (with great delight) from Lincoln Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I agree. Over the next 12 months we are going to get a look at the soul of the Republican Party, and whether it is so desperate to win that the ideas it was built upon will be cast aside.
I stand for my principles, not yours.
You can stand for your own principles, if you are able to do so.
I cannot believe what I'm seeing. There are other candidates who are willing to strongly propagate the War on Terror.
You forgot to add the immediately following statement that he supports "regulations that are consistent with the Second Amendment." He then proceeded to dance around whether NY's regulations would meet that standard.
His interview on Hannity sent chills down my spine. He is lying to everyone in exactly the same fashion as Hillary.
Finally, the polls show him losing NY to Hillary, NJ to Hillary, and IIRC, Cali to Hillary. He also will continue to push social cons away. Basically, he has only the thinnest veneer of positives and still won't accomplish the main goal.
Nope, you've explained your view adequately: $2 is less than $1.
It's not "$2" instead of "$1".
Rudy's expenditure growth averaged 2.9% annually, while local inflation between January 1994 and December 2001 averaged 3.6%.
Most would understand the significance of that.
Not you.
How much clearer can Rudy be in saying he will apoint justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito?
Didn't believe it then. Don't believe it now.
He's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine and your entitled to yours. I've debated JR before. I don't think he expects everyone to agree with him 100% the time and I told him that.
Its sad, but people only hear what they want to hear.
I staunchly opposed Miers at the time too. :)
A good reason not to support Rudy.
"If we can overlook Rudy, we will be expected to overlook everything for the rest of time. We will NEVER again see a Pro-Gun, pro-Life candidate, ever, and probably not in the Senate either, other than incumbents "grandfathered" in already.
It will not happen. I would rather lose the election" -
This is pretty much what conservatives in Wyo, Atleast a great many Ive talked to are saying, if Rudy is our nominee.
They are also saying that even the dem party is moving to the RIGHT.
Reason being-If conservatives stayed home in 06-who elected the "blue dogs"?
So if its true that the dems (not liberals) and moderates are leaning right-wouldnt it be backwards for the GOP to run to the left with someone like Rudy? when the trend points to the right?
Doesnt seem like a good strategy to me!
I thought he did a great interview with Hannity and Hannity likes Rudy by the way. Also, the latest poll I saw shows Rudy leading Hillary in NJ by almost 10%.
"If any Republicans had stood up in 1999 and suggested that Rudy Giuliani would be a great canadidate for the White House, they'd be laughed out of the room without a shred of credibility left."
And if someone with a (D) next to their name instead of an (R) was running with the same record and positions, they would be labeled as a liberal and not fit for the presidency.
But put that (R) there, throw in a little hero worship and by Gawd, we've got ourselves the greatest hope to save the US from hillary!
my displeasure with Rudy stems more from his big-government, anti-freedom stances than with his lack of 'conservative socialist' stances
if he's the nominee and up against Hillary or Obama, I will vote for him though.
i think it's high time 'social conservatives' renamed themselves 'conservative socialists'. they should be proud of their decision not to champion liberty as the highest value.
I do not believe he woudl appoint conservatives. His history in NY is he appoints liberals.
That can not be said too many times. And until that right is secured, by an overturn of Roe, all our Constitutional rights are up for grabs
It seems the RINO supporters are all for GOP seppuku in 2008!
Exactly.. especially here at Free Republic..
Rudy's also beating Hillary in Cali. :) (and was trending 3 points ahead in NY internals)
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.