Posted on 05/16/2007 4:45:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided if he can't placate pro-lifers, he will overthrow them.
The New York Times reported May 10 the Republican presidential candidate has decided to embrace his pro-abortion position after muddling it in recent days, trying to take a former-radical-liberal-now-thoughtful-liberal-yet-conservative-friendly stance.
Poll numbers falling, Giuliani has chucked all that and developed an abortion pride strategy based on "Tsunami Tuesday," the date many liberal states have bumped up their primary to, ahead of primaries of more conservative states. According to the Times:
Mr. Giuliani's campaign ... is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead, they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani's social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.
Giuliani is gambling he can win the nomination as the sole abortion enthusiast from a field of 10 with a minority of like-minded social liberals.
According to Time magazine, Giuliani has "decided that the reign of social conservatives is coming to an end. 'He understands that there are a lot of Republicans out there who are sick of everyone kowtowing to the single-issue extremists,' said one veteran Republican observer in Washington. 'He's breaking from the pack.'"
(Why does the mainstream media never question whether Democrat voters are getting sick of their party's extremists, like the entire lot of presidential candidates, all of whom support partial-birth abortion?)
The conservative response, via the Times:
[S]aid Phyllis Schlafly, "The Republican Party has been pro-life in its platform ever since 1976, the first platform after Roe, and I think most of the Republicans understand they can't afford to lose the pro-life constituency."Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine, said, "You can't win as a pro-choicer who is going to deliberately set on challenging the party's orthodoxy on the issue."
Rudy disagrees. Signs are he plans to morph the GOP into a Democrat Lite on social issues while remaining firm on fiscal and security issues. He said on Fox News Sunday May 13:
[A]ny candidate of the party has about nine out of 10 things in the platform they agree with and one or two things that they don't agree with. I know what my positions are. A very, very big portion of my party agrees with that. A certain portion of my party disagrees with that. My attempt is to try to broaden the base of the Republican Party, to try to bring in people that can agree on that can disagree on that, because I think the issues that we face about terrorism, about our economy, about the growth of our economy are so important that we have to have the biggest outreach possible.
Rudy's first problem is surmountability. It is not true only a "certain portion" of the GOP disagrees with his support of abortion. It's not even true only a certain portion of Americans disagree.
An underreported CNN poll of May 4-6 found 50 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-life, while only 45 percent said they were "pro-choice." A NYT/CBS poll in March found 41 percent of Republicans thought abortions should be prohibited, and 53 percent of Republicans wanted a presidential nominee who would get tougher on abortion.
The majority of Republicans are pro-life, and they were doing very well drawing center-right Democrats until 9-11 and its aftermath, which should not be misread as causing an ideological shift in the party or country.
Which brings us to Rudy's second problem: sustainability. What would a Republican Party look like without pro-lifers?
Make no mistake; no amount of cajoling will get pro-lifers to vote between two pro-abortion presidential candidates. The Democrat would win, and the trickle-down of missing conservative votes would not bode well for the remaining ticket. The "lesser of two evils" argument doesn't stand when we could have avoided one of those evils. That pretext is getting old anyway.
So Rudy would run a victory lap around a decimated kingdom, the GOP. I live in one of the smaller decimated kingdoms, Illinois. California is another.
Rudy's "big tent" theory has already collapsed. That he wants to trial a failed concept on a grander scale indicates he has core issues problematic to the GOP. It was already apparent this thrice-married man whose kids don't even like him had personal core issues.
But don't all moral relativists operate from a core of selfishness?
Which shows just how far removed from mainstream conservatism he really is.
Pro-Life Ping
Stop Rudy Ping
The headline implies implies deeper thought from the Rudy crowd than they are ,as a group, currently capable of.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
LMAO!
Issues are important to the ‘petty’ electorate.
And the sooner, the better.
No, let the RINOs leave, they haven’t earned the title, “Republican”.
He think sthis is going to work? It shows just how far from REALITY he really is.
Must be a lot of LSD left in the New York water from the 60s.
So he finally decided to be honest.
That leaves his sole conservative positions to be crime and foreign policy.
Neither of which he has actually established any conservative credentials on.
Rudy’s also delusional if he thinks he only differs on 1 or 2 positions with the Republican platform. Let’s see: wrong on abortion, border security, gun control, homosexual marriage, property rights, sanctuary cities..... I think he meant to say he agrees with only 1 or 2 positions on the platfrom.
Which shows just how far removed from mainstream conservatism he really is.
Actually, as a strategy, it's not a bad one. With the field so split, there are probably a plurality of R primary voters who either agree with him on the issue or for whom the issue matters little relative to beating Hillary that they they could put him over the top.
“
A footnote in the history books.
Single issues...like abolitionism? Has everyone forgotten that the Republican party BEGAN as a bunch of religiously driven "single issue extremists" who wanted to outlaw slavery even if it meant war? And that history in hindsight has utterly,totally vindicated those "extremists" -- indeed, you'll not find one liberal who disagrees with them.
If the "single issue" is so morally important that it outweighs every other consideration, it is immoral NOT to be a "single issue extremist".
Signs are he plans to morph the GOP into a Democrat Lite on social issues while remaining firm on fiscal and security issues.
If we lose the fundamental moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc), and the fundamental cultural identity issues (gun rights, border control...), then.... WHO CARES if we have a good economy? WHO CARES if we defeat the terroists? I, for one, do not. If America can't be the real America, then I do not care to see it preserved.
A country where abortion and homosexuality are settled, permanent, unchallenged, legally protected aspects of the culture, where honest citizens are disarmed and helpless, and where millions of hostile aliens are deliberately brought in to dilute our God-fearing, liberty-loving Anglo-Puritan culture out of existence, DOES NOT DESERVE TO SURVIVE.
That's no way to run a primary campaign. Not for a Republican anyway.
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.