It's Wrong for the Right to be Rudyphobic

“The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who has “spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena in which I work” — government and politics. Alterton writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph W. Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.

New York’s former mayor “has abandoned social conservatism,” commentator Maggie Gallagher complains. He “is anathema to social conservatives,” veteran columnist Robert Novak recently wrote. Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has said: “I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision.” Dobson and a cadre of Religious Right leaders threaten to deploy a pro-life, third-party candidate should Giuliani be nominated.

This “Rudyphobia” ignores three key factors: Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

While Giuliani accepts a woman’s right to an abortion, he told Iowa voters on August 7: “By working together to promote personal responsibility and a culture of life, Americans can limit abortions and increase adoptions.” Among Giuliani’s proposals to achieve this end:

“My administration will streamline the adoption process by removing the heartbreaking bureaucratic delays that burden the current process.” Giuliani notes that sclerotic court schedules, exhausted social workers, and tangled red tape trap some 115,000 boys and girls in foster care and prevent moms and dads from adopting them.

Giuliani proposes that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives promote organizations that help women choose adoption over abortion.

Giuliani also would encourage states and cities to report timely and complete statistics to measure progress in abortion reduction.

This is no sudden conversion on the road to Washington. As mayor, Giuliani did nothing to advance abortion. That helps explains why, on his watch, total abortions fell 13 percent across America, but slid 17 percent in New York. More significant, between 1993 and 2001, Gotham’s tax-funded Medicaid abortions plunged 23 percent.

Medicaid reimbursement figures from the New York State Division of the Budget allow a rough calculation of the Giuliani administration’s expenditures on taxpayer-financed abortions. This estimated funding dropped 22.85 percent, from $1,226,414 in 1993 to $946,175 in 2001. (See more here.)

Giuliani’s campaign for personal responsibility helped create a climate that discouraged abortion. Moving 58 percent of welfare recipients from public assistance to self-reliance, starting before President Clinton signed federal welfare reform, may have encouraged women and men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. New York’s transformation from chaos to order — which helped slash overall crime by 57 percent and homicide by 67 percent — probably reinforced such self-control.

Compared to the eight Democratic years before he arrived, adoptions under Giuliani soared 133 percent. Fiscal years 1987 to 1994 saw 11,287 adoptions; this grew to 27,561 between FY 1995 and FY 2002.

In another pro-family policy, Giuliani divested 78 percent of City Hall’s vast portfolio of confiscated, property-tax-delinquent homes. These were privatized and sold to families and individuals.

Giuliani proposed eliminating the city’s $2,000 marriage penalty. (As individuals, a husband and wife each would enjoy a $7,500 standard deduction, but only write off $13,000 if they jointly filed taxes.) He chopped it to just $400, letting joint-filers share a $14,600 deduction.

Giuliani also opposed gay marriage in 1989, long before it shot onto the radar. “My definition of family is what it is,” Giuliani told Newsday 18 years ago. “It does not include gay marriage as part of that definition.”

On Day 24 of his mayoralty, Giuliani jettisoned New York’s minority and women-owned business set-aside program. He later explained: “The whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination.” During the 12-year “Republican Revolution,” Congress deserted the fight for colorblindness.

Giuliani sliced or scrapped 23 taxes totaling $9.8 billion and shrank Gotham’s tax burden by 17 percent. This left parents more money for children’s healthcare, private-school tuition, etc.

On education, Giuliani launched a $10 million fund to support 17 new charter schools. Zero existed before he arrived. Giuliani also ended tenure for principals, fought for vouchers, and torpedoed City University’s open admissions and social-promotion policies.

“I took a city that was also known as the pornography capitol of this country,” Giuliani told New Hampshire voters last June. “I got through a ground-breaking re-zoning that was challenged in the courts. We won. And now, if you go to New York City, you don’t have to be bombarded with pornography. And the city has grown dramatically — economically, physically, and spiritually.”

Giuliani accomplished this and plenty more — not in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but in New York City. He could have governed comfortably as a pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-quota, soft-on-crime, tax-and-spend, liberal Republican. Instead, Giuliani relentlessly pushed Reaganesque socio-economic reforms through a City Council populated by seven Republicans and 44 Democrats. What’s so liberal about that?

This record, and Giuliani’s headstrong style, may explain why he leads his competitors and impresses churchgoers. An October 3 ABC/Washington Post poll of 398 Republican and GOP-leaning adults found Giuliani outrunning former senator Fred Thompson, 34 percent to 17, versus Senator John McCain’s 12 percent, and Willard Mitt Romney’s 11. (Error margin +/- 5 percent.) As “most electable,” Giuliani took 50 percent, versus McCain’s 15, Thompson’s 13, and Romney’s 6.

An October 3 Gallup survey found Giuliani enjoying a 38 percent net-favorable rating among churchgoing Catholics, compared to McCain’s 29, and Thompson’s 25. Among Protestant churchgoers, Thompson edges Giuliani 26 percent to 23, with McCain at 16, and Romney at 7.

What do Giuliani’s Religious Right detractors really fear he will do about abortion? If he can overcome their suspicions, secure the GOP nomination, and win the White House, do Giuliani’s critics actually believe he would squander that victory and enrage the GOP base by pushing abortion? Do his foes honestly think Giuliani would request federal abortion funding in violation of the Hyde Amendment he says he supports or appoint activist Supreme Court justices, rather than Antonin Scalia- and Clarence Thomas-style constitutionalists, as he says he would?

Having kept or exceeded his mayoral promises on taxes, spending, crime, welfare, and quality of life, why would he break his presidential promises on such a signature GOP issue? What kind of bait and switch do Giuliani’s foes truly worry he will attempt?

The contrast between Giuliani and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, could not be sharper. She would appoint pro-abortion justices and lower-court judges. These jurists also would be softer on crime, racial preferences, unions, and eminent-domain abuse than Giuliani’s would be.

Hillary Clinton also would take President Bush’s embryonic stem-cell program and expand it in every direction. If Giuliani does not padlock it, he at least would be more sympathetic than Clinton to privatizing it. If America must banish embryos to Petri dishes, let Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer do this. It is inconceivable that Hillary Clinton would shift anything from Washington to the private sector, especially America’s “greedy, wicked” pharmaceutical companies.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Giuliani’s October 20 appearance before the Family Research Council will permit exactly that. Also, while Giuliani may not be their dream contender, social conservatives should not make the perfect the enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

That would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror epic for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

If I step outside my conservatism, and to a certain extent, my faith, I am confronted with issues with which I have difficulty grappling. And at the bottom of it all is my belief that Giuliani is the only one that can defeat Hillary.

And for my conscience's sake, I could even decide that a Democrat presidency is a small price to pay to preserve my steadfast loyalty to my principles and beliefs.

But a HILLARY presidency? No. The damage to my country would be too great. In eight years, a Hillary presidency with a Democrat congress could insure that there will never be a Republican government for as long as this nation can endure.

Rooty toots will keep on trying. I guess it is all parts of NO, that they don’t understand.

I believe those who will not vote Rooty have gotten tired of arguing about it and are going to hang on to their principles.

No is No.

No, it’s not.
Rudy is right on attitude, but wrong on NEARLY EVERYTHING else.
He will do for the National GOP what ‘ol Pataki did for the GOP of New York—totally destroy the organization and leave NOTHING behind.
There are better candidates—let’s pick one.

“And what kind of Republican governnment do we have now??????”

Think I don’t see that? But where do these rhetorical questions lead us...to a Hillary debacle? Think I don’t wrestle with this?

THE PRIMARIES HAVE A PURPOSE!!!

Vote your priciples in the primaries!!!!!

IF you have to make tough choices in the General election, worry about that latter!!!!

No is No.

Giuliani? Why, you would not vote for good `ol Rudy?

Do you mean the strong talking / good delivery / charismatic / strong in the "polls" Rudy?

Perhaps this Rudith?

Maybe this one?

How about `ol Stonwall Rudi?

New York City 2001 Gay Pride Parade It was less than three months before the unknowing and horrific September 11th, 2001, attacks (that's two) on New York City, that N.Y.C. Mayor Rudy Giuliani hosted his "8th Annual Gay Pride Celebration" at Gracie Mansion in Manhattan, New York. It was held on Thursday, June 21, 2001, and for the first time, at the perennial urging of S.V.A. President Williamson Henderson, and a few others, it was held not as an early morning breakfast but as an evening cocktail party.

Actually, I think it is a load of hot air that rudy tootsie is even close to being "the only one that can beat the hildabeast." Consider that a bit of education to the public regarding her now full blown communism would make her a liability to the libs and a target for a campaign that reveals her true nature. Step one would be to quit referring to her as a "Democrat" and only refer to her as a communist. And get that message out in the form of her quotes on forums other than this one.

But back to the subject. We must run Rudy tootsie to beat hildabeast? Na, we can do better than that.

Although I cannot envision myself supporting Guliani, I can see one possible silver lining if he’s elected US Pres.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he will be sooo aware of the right’s distrust and resentment of him that he will go overboard and support (even more than a REAL conservative) all conservative initiatives.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he WOULD nominate pro-Life judges, and perhaps he would steer clear of all legislation that would boost nationalized health care, forced PC homosexual education, etc.

Sometimes, as has occurred with Pres GWB, so-called conservatives feel they need to ‘reach out’ to the leftist loonies just to make friends.

But Rudy perhaps already has the lib GOP and some wackadoodle Dems in his pocket.

Thus he just might push the REAL conservative agenda even harder just to prove he’s not a smooshy liberal. (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?)

Months ago, I thought that regardless who the Republicans nominated, the Republican nominee would beat Hillary. With the election still over a year away, I'm not so sure. Each candidate is a compromise of strong points, negatives and weaknesses, but the most compelling thing about voting for any one of them is Hillary as President. I hope that's enough.

If elected, Hillary will probably have at least two years with a compliant Congress to advance her Soros socialist agenda. I would vote for almost anyone, even Ron Paul, to keep Hillary, Soros and all the rest of the Clinton crime family from sticking it to us.

I dunno. Maybe it’s weakness on my part, but a Hillary presidency, and it’s long-term implications on the type of country the United States could become under her thumb, scares me too much to stay home or vote third party.

If it comes to Hitlery or Rudy then there will be a socialist in the White House regardless of whether there is a an R or D after their names. The GOP has been so fixated on appeasing the socialist Democrats over the years for the sake of compromise that it has abandon it's core conservative principles for socialism and thereby aligned itself with the socialists. They are essentially one party. An alternative party would be the second party.

Thanks for posting some of Rooty’s “qualifications”.

I am sure the Clinton camp has a nice national ad in the works to inform the uninformed.

argh

>>>Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.<<<<

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ::gasps::, hee, hee, hee, hee, hee, ::snorts::, hee, hee, ha, ha, hee, ::falls on floor::

And at the bottom of it all is my belief that Giuliani is the only one that can defeat Hillary.

Speaking as a former, but nearly lifelong, Connecticutian who spent a lot of time in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx, I can say with moral certainty that New Yorkers have a poor conception of what the rest of the country thinks.

This inability to understand what the other 90% of the country thinks and feels extends to Giuliani himself. Giuliani is in a poor position to exploit Hillary's weaknesses, and for every state he puts into play, he puts to other ones in danger. He would also hurt turnout in those states where we could win congressional seats back. This country does not need a tougher, more efficient, less discreet, ethnic Nelson Rockefeller.

This “Rudyphobia” ignores three key factors: Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

This "Rudiphilia" ignores three key factors: Giuliani's abortion agnosticism, his totalitarian mayoral record, and his opposition among the Republican base.

Rudy's supporters need to stop flinging "but he's good on _this_" at the opposition, and start addressing the critical issues which are consistently driving away enough of the base that he won't get elected.

Giuliani is the only one that can defeat Hillary.

Nominate Rudy, get Hillary.

Ya gotta find someone else that doesn't look like a flaming leftist to a very large part of the right wing.
Seriously, if a candidate would do well on the Democratic ticket (which Rudy would), we don't want him.

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.