Posted on 05/12/2007 1:57:04 AM PDT by neverdem
HOUSTON, May 11 — Rudolph W. Giuliani directly challenged Republican orthodoxy on Friday, asserting that his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights should not disqualify him from winning the party’s presidential nomination.
He said that Republicans needed to be tolerant of dissenting views on those issues if they wanted to retain the White House.
In a forceful summation of the substantive and political case for his candidacy, delivered to a conservative audience at Houston Baptist College, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, acknowledged that his views on social issues were out of line with those of many Republican primary voters.
But he argued that there were even greater matters at stake in the election, starting with which party would better protect the nation from terrorism. Mr. Giuliani suggested that his record in New York, which included leading the city after the attacks of Sept. 11 and overseeing a decline in violent crime during his eight years in office, made him the most electable of the Republican candidates, no matter his stand on social issues like abortion.
“If we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country, if we can’t figure that out, we are going to lose this election,” he said.
The speech by Mr. Giuliani reflected a decision — other campaigns suggested “gamble” might be a better word — to address head-on a fundamental obstacle to his winning the nomination: his long history as a moderate Northeast Republican in a party increasingly dominated by Southern and Midwestern conservatives. As such, it loomed as a potentially important moment in the party’s efforts to decide how to compete against the Democrats in 2008 and what it should stand for in a post-Bush era...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Unlikely Frontrunner - Is the GOP in for a Rudy awakening?
The question of temperament is particularly pertinent given the great stress Giuliani's supporters place on his possible leadership in the war on terror. Every activist I spoke with at CPAC who supported Giuliani told me they did so because of their certainty that when it comes to America's jihadist enemies, the former mayor will, in the words of one eager young CPAC delegate, "kick butt and take names." And kill them, too, presumably. It would be a great irony--and perfectly in keeping with the traditional illogic of Republican electoral strategies--if Republicans determined that foreign policy was the premiere issue in the 2008 election and then nominated a candidate who, like Giuliani, has no official foreign policy experience at all.
Giuliani spends a good deal of every stump speech stressing the need for America "to stay on offense" in the war on terror. His precise conception of that war, and his approach to foreign affairs in general, is harder to pin down. To the extent that he's amplified his view of the terror war, it seems much closer to the economic determinism of the moderate realist school than to the notorious butt-kicking strategy of the neoconservative warrior class. Indeed, he says the "war on terror" is itself a misnomer; he prefers the term "the terrorists' war on us," which does sound rather more defensive.
"Americans hate war," he recently told the Churchill Club, a gathering of Silicon Valley executives. "We're at war because they want to come here and kill us, not because we want to go there and kill them. We want to do business with them. We would love to have them all wired and part of the Internet buying American products, and then we'll buy their products. And then we'll have the kind of issues we have with China and India, like we used to have with Japan. But those are good issues to have. That's America, that's what America is about."
In the end, he says, victory in the terror war may come down to commerce. "Technology has transformed the world," he told the executives. "Part of the way we're ultimately going to win the war on terror is through that technology. We're going to win the war on terror because, yes, we have to be militarily strong, we have to consider defending ourselves, but ultimately we overcome terrorism when those parts of the world that haven't connected yet connect to the global economy."
Ignore those quotes at your peril. Trade has not ended. IMHO, small 'l' and large 'L' libertarians, 10 - 15 percent of the electorate depending who asks what, were lost in the last Congressional election by the GOP, especially by the ban on online gambling. I can't see how the statist Giuliani has any appeal to those folks.
What were you thinking Steve Forbes???
Yeah ... RIGHT! We've had 6+ tolerant years of RINOs and that's why we have Dingy Harry and Nana Pelosi as power brokers. We need to be as tolerant of dissenting views like the Liberals are.
Not particularly. Fred Thompson appeals to me. I don't see how a statist like Giuliani advances limited government, or fighting Al Qaeda and similar movements. Trade with them? I think they need a quarentine, at least, IMHO.
Run Fred, run....
This article is basically the NY Slimes cheering that Rudy is chastising Conservatives in the GOP - especially Christians and Conservative Jews; who believe morality is not defined by individual choice, but from above.
This is another nail in the coffin for his candidacy.
At least he has apparently stopped trying to pretend he’s a social conservative, giving Republicans the opportunity to actually show how critical these issues are to them.
I don’t think there’s much doubt Rudi would be more electable in the general election.
He defended his advocacy for tough gun control measures while he was mayor of New York, but said that was central to his strategy to reduce crime in the city. He described himself as an advocate of a view of the Second Amendment that holds that it permits citizens to bear arms. Mr. Giuliani said he supported allowing gay men and lesbians to enter into domestic partnerships but opposed allowing them to marry.
“If we don’t find a way of uniting around broad principles that will appeal to a large segment of this country, if we can’t figure that out, we are going to lose this election,” he said.
With Giuliani, America will have lost much more than an election.
“Trade with them? I think they need a quarentine, at least, IMHO”
Rooty’s talking out of his a$$ again. He should do his homework.
Take oil from the equation and the Arab Middle East has little of value the rest of the world needs or wants.
An area with the population of around 150,000,000 people exports less to the rest of the world than does Finland, population approx, 5,000,000.
They’re a failed culture, plain and simple. That’s why they seek world domination; they can’t do it on their own.
If we can ever develop new technology that gets us and the rest of the West off the oil tit, the Muzzies will be finished. They’ll be as relevant as Namibia. They’ll modernize OR STARVE.
Mayor Giuliani is a political opportunist of the first order. He’s playing a somewhat risky strategy, but it’s one that could very well pay off. An infanticide friendly “conservative” with a strong set of San Francisco values will be very appealing to the leftmedia who will provide him plenty of free publicity.
Remember that the GOP is largely a political party for merchants. Much of the GOP is not interested in social conservatism: they’re interested in protecting business interests. What influence the Christian right has had on the GOP is a recent phenomenon of the last 30 years or so. I think traditional conservatives ascribe much more influence to the Christian right and traditional conservatism than actually exists in the GOP.
Mayor Giuliani could end up being the GOP nominee outright or as the second place finisher, he could simply decide to run on some sort of “unity” ticket with the Democrats.
That the NY Times is reporting on this in depth gives me some pause. The NYT is the daily journal of choice for the socialists.
The template of all such demands for the “need to be tolerant” is a demand to accept a point of view that is otherwise not acceptable. The tip-off that this is a rhetorical template and not an honest plea is that it never works in reverse. The person who makes such a demand will refuse to be “tolerant” of views they dissent from.
That's hard, but true. So, if the "interest" has their way and throws the SoCons off the train, what then?
I see a real possibility of third party. It can't be Keyes. I wonder if one of the Rep contenders would step off, if Rudy secures the nomination?
In the end, he says, victory in the terror war may come down to commerce.
So much for the rudybots mantra of Rooty kicking a$$ and taking names. Seems like he wants to Wal Mart the terrorists to death instead.
But I bet if the terrorists were squeegee men he'd feel different! /s
(no offense meant against wally world. going there today)
Hunter and Tancredo are pro-life. Why do people rush toward Fred this early in the race? It’s time to support Tancredo or Hunter, or both. Deep down I feel I have no reason not to believe Thompson is a globalist RINO. After what we’ve seen with Schwarzenneger, Bush I/II, Giuliani, etc... it should be up to the candidates themselves to prove that they aren’t liberal plants.
Never mind the man behind the curtain.
============================================
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it will be accepted as truth."
Exactly! Giuliani's new "personal liberty/choice" stance is absolutely laughable in light of his authoritarian record, which trampled even tiny personal liberties such as ferret ownership and dancing in bars. I believe the NY Times and its ilk is trying to pit social conservatives and libertarian conservatives against each other -- when actually, we should be united against Giuliani.
Really? I can't figure out how he would win. We know from past elections that the electorate is very evenly divided. If Giuliani is the nominee, it's almost certain that a socially conservative third-party candidate will emerge on the right. Many libertarian conservatives will go third-party as well.
Where does Giuliani make up these votes, plus some more to put him over the top? The Reagan democrats? No, they won't defect to a pro-choice Republican? The anti-war democrats won't defect to a pro-war republican.
And once Giuliani is the nominee (if that happens), we're going to have front-page, wall-to-wall coverage of the upcoming Kerik felony trials (with new scandals daily about corruption and patronage); constant "new revelations" about the GOP candidate such as the fact that he assigned city police to guard his mistress, and that he urged the NY State legislature to collect the DNA of all newborns; and all the "Giuliani Time" stories about police brutality and Giuliani's unlawful release of juvenile records for the unarmed man his police force killed, etc., etc., etc. That will turn off many in the mushy middle.
So where does he make up these votes? He's unelectable.
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.