Posted on 06/01/2007 4:54:16 PM PDT by dschapin
Powerline Post by John Hinderaker (excerpts)
"A couple of years ago, the conventional wisdom was that Rudy Giuliani would be a formidable Presidential candidate, but could never get the Republican nomination because of his liberal views on some social issues. I believe that we were among the first to question this assumption...At the Candidates' Forum, the Giuliani campaign has started a thread titled Social Conservatives Back Giuliani, which cites some of the recent poll data...UPDATE: Interesting--so far, the commenters on Giuliani's Forum site are pretty much unanimously OK with his position as laid out above. That could change as more comments come in, of course, but I think readers of this site and participants in the Candidates' Forum are a much better barometer of conservative opinion than suppositions by liberal reporters about how social conservatives think."
No.
Yada, yada, yada. Let’s at least try to get serious. This constant sales pitch is dead in the water.
Is that dubious + devious? :)
I don’t think so. When it comes to a primary, we have to go with someone who reflect our values. I can’t support him and I’m not even a fundy.
Bump for possible new freeper term, debious
I don’t think you actually read my comment. I do not support Giuliani - I just was shocked to find out that Powerline was being supportive off him. If you read my comments after the article you will find that I want people to go to the Powerline candidates forumn and write comments on this article explaining that Giuliani is unaceptable to Conservatives.
I meant Dubious - my apologies.
Look at the Polls, lot`sa folks like Rudy and, judging from a previous posted article., McNut is leading in South Carolina.
I think a common error is to forget we are not stopping abortions, for example, we are instead electing a President.
“my apologies”
No need. A wee bit of humor helps these days. Some people probably remember my post about “hompsexuality”, the mis-spelling was funnier than my post!
Lol, thanks for the vote of confidence :-)
Then stay home and enjoy the democrap prez. either Thompson or Rudy can win. Ron Paul has NO chance to win in this country and neither does Hunter.
I believe certain people have chosen sides.
Believing anything Powerline says if you are socially conservative is a waste of time.
Right now, maybe all of us are a little shocked at each other, also at others who we may have believed were on the same page with us.
Social conservatives are just that, we believe our candidate can do more than one thing at a time.
We all want to be safe, but we wish to make sure what we are saving is what we believed it to be.
I’m not fundamentalist either and I just don’t trust the man. Shifting beliefs make me nervous.
“I want people to go to the Powerline candidates forumn and write comments on this article explaining that Giuliani is unaceptable to Conservatives.”
Don’t you mean unacceptable to social/religious conservatives?
I can’t support Rooty either, but it is now apparent that the line has been drawn. I doubt to many minds will move from their position.
A lot of us feel that Abortion is the greatest moral crisis that America has faced since slavery and that one day we will face our children and grandchildren and have to explain why we did not fight for the lives of the unborn. I think the social moderates in the party who want us to support Giuliani do not realize how bitter a pill they are asking us to swallow. If we allow Giuliani to be elected he will remake the Republican party in his own image and we will have no voice in the political process. The social conservative movement is being asked to commit political suicide and we must not go quietly into the night.
To answer the title question: NO.
Next....
Read and Weep (Can Giuliani Win Over Social Conservatives?
::::
Someone must be kidding to ask this question, especially now that his equal in pro-illegals is trying to sink the entire conservative element of the Repub party with his insane amnesty bill....Rudy, kiss it good bye. If this horror-story of a bill passes, anyone who even thinks about Mexicans is going down in flames....this will be one pissed off country when the rest of the masses figure out what has been done to them....
Just to clarify, that was the title of the post at Powerline - I do not support Giuliani and want people to comment on the powerline article in the candidates forumn to show them that social conservatives do not and will not support Giuliani.
I hate abortion. Every time I look at my perfect, beautiful 7 grandcritters I hate it more. That`s why no of the Rat candidates can be allowed to win. Rudy might not share our views, but he has promised to allow the courts to decide and not make abortion a litmus test for judges. Hillorat and the Rats have made a different promise.
“A lot of us feel that Abortion is the greatest moral crisis that America has faced since slavery”
No, the democratic party is. And you help them by making this the single issue you will base your vote on and divide the republican party.
Abortion is not a single issue for but it is a non-negotiable one. I wan’t a candidate who supports a smaller government, a strong defense, lower taxes, and human life - is this too much to ask? It is not the social conservatives who are splitting the party - we would support lots of good candidates that economic conservatives could enthusiastically support as well. However, the party elites have chosen to push a candidate which social conservatives cannot in good conscience support and if the party splits the blame is not ours. We are being asked to committ political suicide and this we will not do.
You are a smart fellow and, sadly, a bit rare these days.
It’s better to win and see 33% of your values impact policy, than lose and see 5% of your values impact policy.
I’ll take Fred Thompson (while preferring Tom Tancredo) but I don’t need another liberal Republican in the WH. Rudy will not get my vote. I won’t vote for the Dem, but I am not voting for Rudy, either. The GOP needs to learn that they can’t ignore conservatives and if they have to lose everything to get that into their thick heads then so be it.
That, by definition, is what a single issue voter is. Yeah I am sure you have all sorts of con issues that you support but this single issue will define whether or not you vote for a particular candidate. Here is a question for you. If you had a choice between a candidate who embodied all the loony left had to offer yet was pro-life and a candidate that was a pillar of conservative thought yet was pro-choice, which would you pick? Don’t say it could never happen, just answer.
He’s unacceptable to a lot of libertarian conservatives, too.
Still waiting to see dschapin’s answer.
And while we are waiting for that answer, I’d like it if someone would tell me why the social cons won’t allow us fiscal/small government/libertarian cons have a few terms at the helm. We banded together with the social cons to give them President Bush who forwarded their agenda on abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research even as he transgressed our agendas on such things as the prescription drug benefit, McCain/Feingold, and no child left behind to name just a few. Why can’t they support one of our candidates who may not be as vigorous on social issues especially if it means the difference between winning the presidency and losing it in the general election. Its our turn.
Ok so Giuliani doesn’t appeal to some libertarian conservatives as well as social conservatives. In other words he doen’t appeal to the far right and the far left of the republican party. Who do you think has a better chance of holding the party together and seeing it through to a general election victory? Someone on one of the ends of the republican spectrum or someone in the middle like Rudy?
You are mistaken in thinking it's left-right. For libertarian conservatives it's big-small government. And Rudy is NOT "in the middle" on that matter.
I think your "far right" and "far left" description isn't really accurate or useful, because there is not a commonly accepted definition of what issues are left or right (e.g., the second amendment, which both libertarians and social conservatives support). Giuliani is the farthest thing from a middle-of-the-road, centrist compromise candidate, as is amply proved by the many GOPers who will not support him if he's the candidate.
It would be more accurate to describe three major and overlapping GOP constituencies: social conservatives, libertarian conservatives and national security conservatives. Significant chunks of two of these three groups have stated that they will vote third party or sit it out if Giuliani is the candidate. Whether or not you agree with that approach, it's a fact. In a very evenly divided electorate, how does Giuliani win without big segments of 2/3 of the traditional GOP constituency? Where does he make up those votes, plus a some more to put him over the top?
And how in the world do you figure that Giuliani is a small government/libertarian conservative??? He's an authoritarian whose record shows he respects virtually no Constitutional limits on government power. That is the very definition of big government.
I'm not criticizing you for supporting Giuliani -- but I'm baffled by your assertion that you support him on small government/libertarian grounds.
Is that dubious + devious? :)
************
I like it!
He (Rudy) does however have this little thing about wanting ME to help pay for baby murder (taxpayer funding). Uh-Uh.
That said, Rudy also plays pretty fast and lose with the 2nd Amendment, and the stuff he has traditionally backed ("Assault Weapons" Ban, etc.) would put a big dent in my gun cabinets. Yep. Plural.
So, no, either way, no vote here for Rudy, not now, not if Hell freezes over, not if we have orange groves in North Dakota. Just not happening.
I think part of the reason people seem so in lockstep on his website is that few of us who are not interested would even bother to check his website out at this point.
We have seen plenty, and no amount of restating positions will change history (we have seen 'reinventing' before), no amount of remodeling will turn that old car barn into an antebellum mansion, nor will any anount of polish will put a shine on it.
“I think your “far right” and “far left” description isn’t really accurate or useful, because there is not a commonly accepted definition of what issues are left or right (e.g., the second amendment, which both libertarians and social conservatives support). Giuliani is the farthest thing from a middle-of-the-road, centrist compromise candidate, as is amply proved by the many GOPers who will not support him if he’s the candidate.”
You say that my definition is not accurate or useful because there is not a commonly accepted definition yet you go on to use a left versus right definition to claim that Giuliani is no middle of the road centrist. I agree definitions are slippery but I don’t think my description that the libertarians and the social conservatives are the two ends of the republican spectrum is inaccurate or useless. It fits generally. And the middle would be small govt conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think Guilianni could capture the middle and even attract quite a few libertarian conservatives based on his excellent fiscal reform record. Libertarians and small govt conservatives would settle for a candidate who would just get spending under control.
“It would be more accurate to describe three major and overlapping GOP constituencies: social conservatives, libertarian conservatives and national security conservatives. Significant chunks of two of these three groups have stated that they will vote third party or sit it out if Giuliani is the candidate. Whether or not you agree with that approach, it’s a fact. In a very evenly divided electorate, how does Giuliani win without big segments of 2/3 of the traditional GOP constituency? Where does he make up those votes, plus a some more to put him over the top?”
Whether or not I agree with that approach, it’s a fact? Gee, I guess because you say it’s a fact it must be true. Actually I don’t think your definition is any better than mine, in fact I’ve never seen any definition of conservatism break down the way yours does, while I see definitions close to mine all the time. Just go here for just one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism#Types_of_conservatism
As it is Guiliani is seen as a centrist/moderate by Rassmussen more so than any other candidate. He has favorability ratings way higher than any of the Republican contenders. He is also seen as having a better chance of beating any of the rat top contenders. But yeah without the social cons lending him significant support in the general election he will probably lose. Thanks alot. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
In answer to your hypothetical question. If the conservative candidate was less pro-life than I would like but still supported many meaningfull restrictions on abortion - I would vote for him. However, if he supported abortion on demand like Giuliani does I could not in good conscience support him. I simply don’t want the blood of any unborn children on my hands. If the other candidate also was completely unacceptable I would vote for a write in candidate.
You are wrong to blame social conservatives for Bush’s lack of conservatism in other areas. I also opposed Bush’s big government approach to education, campaign finance reform, and prescription drug benefits. In fact, social conservatives were not very comfortable at all with Bush when he was first running for the nomination in 2000. Bush was pushed by the same party leaders that now are pushing candidates like Giuliani and Romney. We only started to support him later when we were pleasantly surprised to find that he was more socially conservative then anticipated. So, if you want to blame someone for Bush - blame the party elites not us.
Thats a good point. I just was surprised to see John Hinderaker imply that the posts supporting Giuliani came from a representative sampling of Conseratives and I wanted some real conservatives to go over and make sure they understood that true Conservatives will not support Giuliani.
“If the conservative candidate was less pro-life than I would like but still supported many meaningfull restrictions on abortion - I would vote for him. However, if he supported abortion on demand like Giuliani does I could not in good conscience support him.”
I liked your answer in that you didn’t dodge and gave a reasoned answer. I’ll forgive you not exactly answering it(smile). I’ll add Rudy also said that he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench. That is good enough for this con. It should not matter what he personally thinks. It was the courts who made this mess and it will be the courts who get us out of it with a little help from a conservative president. I don’t believe the constitution gives the federal government the power to have any say on abortion. I don’t believe, as many social cons do, that a president working with congress should/can push through any legislation on abortion. So I have another question for you. Do you think the executive and legislative branches of the federal gov’t should make abortion illegal?
I disagree. Many social cons want to increase the power and scope of the federal government in order to forward their agenda. Abortion is a classic example. The federal goverment should have no say on it. What do you think drives big government conservatism? It is definitely not the libertarian or small government conservatives. It is composed of fiscal conservatives who are happy as long as the budget is balanced and the social conservatives(along with pretty much all liberals) as long it forwards their social agenda. These days fiscal conservatives aren’t happy with Bush’s “type” of conservatism. Only the social cons are.
And Rudy’s mayoral record has fiscal cons tickled pink.
Uh, yes, I was still disputing your assertion.
I think Guilianni could capture the middle and even attract quite a few libertarian conservatives based on his excellent fiscal reform record. Libertarians and small govt conservatives would settle for a candidate who would just get spending under control.
Some might, but many including me and a lot of other small-l libertarians on this site would not. Many small government and libertarian types aren't going to settle for the hope of spending control when the candidate has such a deplorable record on the Constitution.
Whether or not I agree with that approach, it’s a fact? Gee, I guess because you say it’s a fact it must be true.
Are you disputing my assertion that many social conservatives and small-l libertarian conservatives state that they won't vote for Giuliani should he win the nomination? Have you read any other Giuliani threads on this site? Many, many people have said this -- that's what the heated arguments over the last three months have been about.
Actually I don’t think your definition is any better than mine, in fact I’ve never seen any definition of conservatism break down the way yours does, while I see definitions close to mine all the time.
You've never seen a breakdown of the overlapping conservative coalition described as social conservatives, fiscal/small government conservatives, and national security conservatives? That's the Reagan coalition, typically described as a three-legged stool: http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.455/pub_detail.asp
Or, if you prefer, this is from your own link: An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming the politics of 1980s United States, galvanizing the success of the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his economic policies, known as "Reaganomics," foreign policy conservatives who favored his staunch opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union over the détente of his predecessors, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.
But yeah without the social cons lending him significant support in the general election he will probably lose. Thanks alot.
And, as we've discussed, without many libertarian conservatives. If you concede that he will probably lose, why do you argue in his favor? If electability doesn't matter to you, and you simply support Giuliani because his beliefs are closest to yours, then Godspeed. But if electability is a priority for you, why not move past Giuliani to a candidate whom all segments of the GOP can vote for?
And it’s arguable how much of a fiscal conservative Giuliani is. He spent like mad his second term (even apart from 9/11 spending), he behaved in ways that left NYC on the hook for millions of dollars in government abuse lawsuits, he cut all sorts of sweetheart deals for private entities such as the NY Times and the Yankees (and in the process abused eminent domain to seize private property and shut down viable businesses), and he pushed for all manner of big spending on the state and federal level.
In answer to your question - I think abortion should be prohibited by the 14th Amendments provision which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” I would support legislation by Congress and the President to clarify that the unborn are persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. Alternatively, I would support a human life Amendment to the Constitution. I support other federal restrictions but admit that Congress may not have the power to pass them if they do not come in the form of Constitutional Amendments or fall under the grant of power given to congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
“I think abortion should be prohibited by the 14th Amendments provision which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
In other words you are for expanding the power of the federal govt to decide what life is. Careful what you wish wish for.
“I would support legislation by Congress and the President to clarify that the unborn are persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.”
Ok, so you found your loophole to grant the federal gov’t the power to decide what is alive or not alive. Again, be careful what you wish for. Once you give them that, what is deserving of life and what is not? What is human? What is life? Are there classifications of humanity? Anyway what I am saying is that its important not to give that power to the federal government.
Alternatively, I would support a human life Amendment to the Constitution.
I am ok with constitutional amendments. It wont ever happen in my lifetime but if it did come up for a vote I’d vote againts it. The founders of this federalist goverment left out such issues as abortion with the 10th amendment in the bill of rights. That all laws not specifically granted by the constitution are left to the people and the states. They did this becauce they knew that beyond the general running of government the myriad issues such as abortion that enflame a democratic society should be solved at a state level. Let the states be the petri dishes for governmental policy. This, in my opinion, is the only way to run a 300 million population country. Or would you just impose your beliefs on people that you have never met, never will meet and live in places you will never go to?
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.