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."
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.
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.