American Spectator: Rudy's New Social Conservatism

American Spectator Magazine ^ | 2.15.07 | Jennifer Rubin

[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.

[servantboy777]

"the description "social liberal," can overcome the objections of many religious conservatives to win the Republican nomination."

Not this conservative!

[azhenfud]

Fair enough.

Your tagline says, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

So, you believe supporting Rudy extolls the best representation of that statement?

[OMalley]

Yep!

[Cicero]

I'm addressing the article, which suggests that it's possible to be for traditional morality, for good versus evil, while killing millions of babies. No, it's not.

I would consider backing Rudy if he has the nomination and is running against hillary, but ONLY if it looks as if he agrees to take a responsibly pro-life position.

If pro-life Democrats are willing to flip over and kill babies in order to run for president, then I think Rudy could do the opposite.

He says he's a strict constructionist, but it's important to know what he means by that. In the past, he has said that it means total support for Roe v. Wade. He needs to commit himself to a change on life and family issues.

[Antoninus]

I still think in the voting both, most hold their nose and vote Rudy.

I wouldn't bet the country on it....

[servantboy777]

"hold their nose and vote for Rudy"

If we keep fishin from the same pond.....are we not going to keep catchin the same ol big mouth bass?

Vote Conservative!

[papertyger]

Your candidates are out there, but nobody's voting for them, so you want to take your ball and go home. Well, that's democracy for you. Call out the "whaaambulance."

Correct, but without us you RINOs lost for forty years. You might want to ponder exactly who needs that whambulance most.

[don-o]

Hannity likes Rudy by the way.

Like, that's a good thing? LOL!!!

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion...Do You?

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

---

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[FreeReign]

[.. A Giuliani nomination will split this party wide open, possibly fracturing it beyond repair. ..] George Bush has already done that.. ONLY NEWT could repair the breach..

As another Freeper pointed out yesterday, Newt's contract had nothing with abortion, 2A and illegal immigration.

Hey if you want to move the bar, that's fine with me, but let's be honest about it.

[servantboy777]

Sounds like he'd make a good MAYOR.

[Little Ray]

I'd settle for 50%, but Rudy ain't it.

[hosepipe]

[.. 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. ..]

Rudy was fighting insolvency.. bankruptcy(NYC)..
He did what he had to do.. He is no genius..
NYC is still the sphincter of New England..
Yes even worse than Boston..

[Fishrrman]

meg88 wrote:
I think even they see he can beat Hillary

To which madprof98 replied:
The only cause that really matters, apparently

Well, yes, for 2008, this IS the "only cause that really matters". To give Hillary the power of the White House [again] is unthinkable. It must be resisted at all costs, and in this case the end DOES justify the means, and the candidate.

In 2008 our best shot will be holding the presidency, and perhaps with a great deal of luck, regaining a bare majority in the Senate (even that will be difficult). The House is lost to us, at least for next election cycle or two. It will take time to rebuild there, IF it can be done. One must realize the electoral demographics of the country have been changing at the speed of a whirlwind, since Reagan's time. It will be much harder to pull conservative victories once the sitting Congress (and our sitting _president_, sad to say) push through "immigration reform". You know what that means: 15 million new Democratic votes to overcome.

2008 will be a "defensive election" for the Republicans, and for conservatives. We have sustained sizable losses in the wake of 2006, and to dream of sweeping back into power on the coattails of an arch-conservative candidate ... well, its a _dream_, and will amount to nothing more in '08.

We don't need dreams.

We need victories.

- John

[RockinRight]

Hillary IS dangerous, no doubt. And, all b*tching aside, I'd probably vote for Rudy over her, if it comes down to it.

However, it's primary time, and I have other plans for 2008 and it's name ain't Rudy. We can do better than Giuliani.

[My GOP]

It is if you're a mainstream, pragmatic conservative like Hannity and I and not on the far right wing fringe.

[Little Ray]

Wrong. We need some principles. The GOP has to stand for something. If its only principle is "power at any cost" then it might as well be The Democrat Party.

[madprof98]

in this case the end DOES justify the means

I wish all the Rudy supporters would just come out and admit this is what they believe. It would not make you right, or moral, but it would be a whole lot easier to read than this blather about Rudy's being a stealth conservative in lib's clothing.

[FreeReign]

[.. 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. ..]

Rudy was fighting insolvency.. bankruptcy(NYC).. He did what he had to do.. He is no genius..

You don't think the federal government has a spending problem? NYC is still the sphincter of New England.. Yes even worse than Boston..

NYC has always had a good minority of conservatives. Boston is hopeless. Doesn't even snow there anymore.

[CrawDaddyCA]

The repugnant venom directed to the core of conservative social beliefs is just appalling by these Liberal Republican supporters on the FR.

Here, hear...well said.