Conservatives target Rudy

Newsday ^ | Feb 8 2007 | CRAIG GORDON

[Reagan Man]

WASHINGTON -- Eager to head off Rudolph Giuliani's recent gains in the polls, conservative activists this week strengthened their attacks, with some promising to step up their efforts on the Internet, talk radio and "below-the-radar" to discredit him going forward.

They are taking direct aim at one of Giuliani's strongest selling points, at least to some backers -- that he is the Republicans' best hope of stopping Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These critics argue that his nomination would prompt a conservative third-party candidate to join the race and split the GOP vote, clearing the way for Clinton's election.

"There's no way conservatives could stand for Giuliani becoming the Republican nominee," said Richard Viguerie, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement. "I guarantee whoever the Democrats nominate would be the next president."

~ship~

He backed off his earlier opposition to a ban on the medical procedure referred to as partial-birth abortion, and expressed support for gun owners' Second Amendment rights, even though as New York mayor he sued gun manufacturers and argued that more guns lead to more crime.

~snip~

So social conservatives -- for whom Giuliani's support for abortion rights, gun control and gay unions are anathema -- are speaking out. Some say they would use the tools at their disposal to tell voters about Giuliani's social stances.

Viguerie, a direct-mail pioneer, argued it no longer takes millions of mailings to make the case, thanks to talk radio, the Internet and other "below-the-radar" media.

Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, told a conservative radio host that Giuliani's positions are "far outside the mainstream of conservative thought ... Once people focus on this election and the candidates, Giuliani's lead will diminish."

[b9]

"There are many instances of the "unrealistic" wing saying they will sit on their hands on Election Day if Rudy is nominated. I have not seen one Rudy supporter say the reverse if Hunter was nominated. "

This Hunter supporter (primary) will be gladly supporting whichever nominee wins for the general election.

I've known Hunter for many years here in San Diego, and hope America will get to know him well in the next year and a half.

[jla]

Richard Viguerie also condemned/bad mouthed Ronald Reagan, when he was president and even after he was dead.

Yes, and you've waltzed before the Austrian Royal Court.

[jla]

Lots of Rudelixir being sold.
I see R. Emmett Tyrrell has even taken a swig.

[Hydroshock]

There are three I can't ever vote for , Rudy McRomney.

[jammer]

Good list.

4. Lived with two gay roomates after divorce. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Of course not--you don't expect Rudy to be able to decorate, do you?

[areafiftyone]

I understand but even if McCain or Romney wins the nomination you won't vote for them? I understand you don't like Rudy (that's a given) but what if Romney wins? He seems to be making big headway in S.C. I heard.

[Spiff]

But other conservatives say Giuliani's strong poll standing is mainly driven by his popularity after 9/11. A recent Gallup Poll showed that nearly three-fourths of Republicans didn't know he favors civil unions for same-sex couples, and two-thirds didn't know he supports abortion rights.

That is precisely why Giuliani polls as well as he does right now. I'll bet most Republicans don't know about Bernie Kerik, his award from N.A.R.A.L., his honorary membership in the radical Stonewall Veterans, his bragging about gun confiscation, his opposition to all Partial Birth Abortion bans (far more egregious than just being "pro-choice"), and his support for gays in the military. Among other things. There's no way he can win the nomination if conservative Republicans keep getting the word out about him.

[SQUID]

Rudy is a LIBERAL. END OF STORY!

[dirtboy]

In order to win elections, a candidate MUST appeal to more than just its base

But you also cannot win if you alientate large segments of your base. Which is why the nominee needs to be center-right, not at the far left fringes of the party.

[dirtboy]

You'll never quite find the perfect conservative

I am so sick of this asinine nonsense.

We are not asking for the perfect conservative. We are asking for a nominee who at least remotely resembles a conservative. Rudy doesn't.

[Afronaut]

[ElPatriota]

:) like I care!

[upsdriver]

I know, I was just trying to be funny. It was late, what can I say.

[TitansAFC]

---"There's a reason why his polls have stood up so well, it's not because voters are stupid and don't know about his social liberalism, which is there."

You're right, Fred. As evidenced here, the SoCons and Pro-Gun folks have no problem with him.

Oh, and all of those polls by the NRA, Family Research Council, et al - those polls showing that almost nobody does know where Rudy stands on those issues - forget about those.

Man, these Ivory Tower Republicans are arrogant and out-of-touch. It's going to be fun watching them learn, yet again, that the right does care about more than war and taxes.

[TitansAFC]

Sorry, nopardons, that's not true.

I was also here lurking and then posting during that time. It was the Bush/McCain thing that originally brought me to the board.

There was some distrust of Bush, but not this kind of hatred. It was mainly a debate over having a more Conservative candidate (Keyes, Buchanan, Bush); everyone did indeed come on board afterwards.

What you're seeing now is not a repeat of Bush in 2000. Rudy backers have been reduced to attacking Reagan and Conservatives, and anti-Rudy folks are desperate and fearful. You are not being honest by trying to suggest it's the "same" as 2000. I know, I was here.

You did not have Pro-Lifers outright THREATENED, or Pro-Gun folks outright THREATENED by and candidate, save possibly McCain - depending on whom you asked.

The spilt Rudy would cause would be long-term, and deadly for the party at a time when Democrats are willing to put up with anything in order to grasp power.

Rudy would not only lose, but the GOP would spend a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to convince all of the SoCon and Gun Conservatives that they really do still care about their issues.

[Convert]

47,000,000 is not rare

?>

Does rudy support the UN "reproductive health" agenda:

food for population control being imposed on poor nations

(providing health dollars for: abortion/ sexual rights for children/ erotic rights for all ages)

?

[Convert]

To: Reagan Man
47,000,000 is not rare

?>

Does rudy support the UN "reproductive health" agenda:

food for population control being imposed on poor nations

(providing health dollars for: abortion/ sexual rights for children/ erotic rights for all ages)

[Convert]

To: Reagan Man
47,000,000 is not rare

?>

Does rudy support the UN "reproductive health" agenda:

food for population control being imposed on poor nations

(providing health dollars for: abortion/ sexual rights for children/ erotic rights for all ages)

[Convert]

The real question is - If the terrorists respect him as a leader why did they keep going after his city?

[Convert]

What you're seeing now is not a repeat of Bush in 2000. Rudy backers have been reduced to attacking Reagan and Conservatives, and anti-Rudy folks are desperate and fearful. You are not being honest by trying to suggest it's the "same" as 2000. I know, I was here. You did not have Pro-Lifers outright THREATENED, or Pro-Gun folks outright THREATENED by and candidate, save possibly McCain - depending on whom you asked. The spilt Rudy would cause would be long-term, and deadly for the party at a time when Democrats are willing to put up with anything in order to grasp power. Rudy would not only lose, but the GOP would spend a lot of time trying unsuccessfully to convince all of the SoCon and Gun Conservatives that they really do still care about their issues.

You are absolutely right, Titans AFC!