Posted on 12/17/2006 6:21:30 PM PST by Ohio So-Con
In the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections, as pundits and bloggers looked forward to the '08 presidential election, there was almost a universal sense of conventional wisdom that John McCain was the plainly recognized frontrunner, whereas Rudy Giuliani's stature as a contender would immediately plummet "once those conservatives found out about those liberal social views of Rudy's."
Then, during the summer of 2006, the mainstream media and beltway thinkers had their proof. A serious political action organization was formed by a group of hardcore social conservatives, dedicated to tearing down any chance of Rudy's at grabbing the presidential nomination. The organization, called SayNoToRudy.org, took great pains to point out every seemingly liberal aspect of Giuliani's record, digging up all sorts of quotes and facts, circulating petitions amongst fellow conservatives to discourage Rudy from seeking the nomination, and even making preparations to air anti-Rudy television and radio ads in key primary states.
In the few weeks before the November 7 election, the site seemed to go stagnant and stale. Website updates all but halted, staff members could not be reached for comment, and the group's activities came to an apparent standstill. Then, the unthinkable happened. Two days before the midterm election, on November 5, the entire site was erased, replaced by an intriguing press release. The announcement explained, in humbled and quieted (and in a tone that sounded almost shell-shocked) terms, that several of the top staff of the site had had what might be called a "Road to Damascus" experience.
The group's press release explained how, during the deep search some of the group's top members had undertaken in trying to dig up every ounce of mud and every skeleton in Rudy Giuliani's closet, they had gotten a clearer picture of the former NYC Mayor than they had perhaps wanted. As the webpage stated in plain terms, the top leaders of the socially conservative group had lost their disdain for Rudy, and, in fact, now endorse Rudy for President in 2008.
Deroy Murdock, a columnist and editor of the National Review, spoke with Attorney Steve Giudicci, leader of the now-defunct Say No To Rudy, where the former Rudy foe explained that his indepth study of Rudy's record, facilitated by books like "Prince of the City" (Fred Siegel), had forced his views on Giuliani to do a 180. "Giudicci," Murdock writes, "saw Giuliani speak at a New Hampshire campaign stop on November 3 and was sold."
It was perhaps one of the most overlooked stories of the early 2008 presidential election season, smothered by coverage of the present midterm election that rocked the halls of American power. Yet, this little story may bode incredibly well for Rudy's future presidential campaign.
Just a month and a half later, a new website appeared, this time called RudyRoots.org, founded by many of these same social conservatives, who now found themselves promoting the man they had, just a few months ago, despised.
The newly founded and well researched RudyRoots.org details Rudy's healthy upbringing that gave him a deep respect for traditional GOP values, Rudy's serious spirituality and the role of Christian faith in his life, and his record as the number three guy in Reagan's DoJ and his record as NYC Mayor, which leads the new website to don Mr. Giuliani "America's Most Accomplished Conservative" since Ronald Reagan. Socially conservative Rudy supporters on the RudyRoots' Message Board fawn over the former Mayor, saying his personal views on abortion won't affect his Presidency because of Rudy's unwavering support for strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds, a la Roberts, Alito, and Scalia, and pointing out that the statement that Rudy is pro-gay marriage is an outright lie (Rudy is actually strongly in support of traditional marriage).
And now that John McCain's power against Democrats like John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton in general election matchup polls seems to be falling, leaves many conservative primary voters wondering, "Why are we considering supporting McCain now?" John McCain's alienation of conservatives in the past decade, now coupled with the decline of the one thing McCain had going for him (his electoral power) seems to leave the mantle of frontrunner to only one other person--Rudy Giuliani, who leads for the Republican nomination in virtually every single recent poll.
This is now being echoed by even conventional wisdom pundits, like Beltway Boy Fred Barnes, who, over this weekend, stated that he thought it was actually Rudy Giuliani who had the bigger advantage with conservaties than John McCain. Could it be--could it truly be--that Rudy Giuliani, with his strong conservative record of executive leadership, and his unwavering support of strict constructionist judges to neutralize his personal views on abortion and gun control, along with his unrivaled poll numbers, is actually the socially conservative Republicans' greatest hope for 2008? Many are now coming to believe so.
One word describes this: cynical.
Right... or you could actually address the hard facts and statistics I'm presenting.
His "personal views on abortion and gun control" indicate that there are serious problems within his brain.
No mystery to me... We have a new Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party who equates the Christian conservatives with the Taliban...
'It is by their fruit(s) you shall know them.' (pun intended)
IBTZ?
Careful. Both Goldwater and Reagan (until he decided to run for President) were pro-choice.
Even Sam Brownback recently stated he would get behind Rudy should Rudy win the Republican nomination.
In today's world, the President has very little sway on social issues, as shown by the absolute lack of initiative on the part of George W. Bush in doing anything about abortions. All Presidents can do is appoint strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds, something Rudy is a champion of. We need to, instead of putting candidates to litmus tests to make sure they think exactly the way we do, look for the candidate that can best lead our nation using conservative principles like fiscal discipline, smaller government, libertarianism (with a lowercase l), less taxes, welfare reduction, education reform, and, very importantly, a strong national defense. Rudy Giuliani has the best record of achievement on these issues, backed up by the most comprehensive executive experience of any top tier Republican candidate.
Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Clinton vetoed it. Evidently Presidential elections have consequences.
And yet the number and rate of increase of abortions in America are noticeably greater under Bush than they were under Clinton.
The point is abortion will not be saved or solved by the personal views of the President we elect. It is an issue that will be solved on two levels: 1). On a person-to-person level, with everyday conversation and witness; 2). On a judicial level, with strict constructionist judges possessing strong conservative backgrounds.
The best thing a President can do for the pro-life cause is to appoint these kind of judges, and constructionism and judicial conservatism is something that Rudy's beliefs are grounded in. A President Giuliani (who says judges like Roberts, Alito and chiefs like Scalia are ideal) will not be any worse for the pro-life cause than President GW Bush (who nominated Miers). Abortion really isn't an issue with Rudy. What IS an issue is all the other facets of conservative leadership, from economic to law-and-order to national defense, etc. Rudy Giuliani has the strongest record on these issues, and it's not something we can simply sweep under the rug because he doesn't personally have all the same beliefs that we do.
Prove it, then we'll move on from there.
I have never forgiven "W" for saying that he would sign the AWB if it reached his desk, but with a conservative congress, there was no chance it would. I have little doubt that Rudy would encourage the opportunity to sign, with pleasure.
I don't presently own any "assault weapons", I think, anyway, but several guns that could become "assault weapons",with the stroke of a pen, like my old S&W M-59, and it's 13 round magazines, or my little Ruger 10-22.
The "blame the gun, ban the gun" philosophy has no valid place in the Republican Party, absolutely none, no way, can I be clearer? If you support solving crime by abolishing or infringing the liberty of law abiding citizens, you are anything but a Republican.
Rudy's use of gun control to solve the crime problem in NYC, which really worked by the way (cut 57% of crime, 64% of murders), was solely a local solution to a local problem and in no way specifically represents Rudy's views on gun control nation-wide or universally. NYC is a very unique city because of its geography. It is situated on a cluster of islands and peninsulas, many of which are connected to the mainland by few or even single bridges, and so this makes for a lot of bottlenecks and narrow streets that made it easier for drug dealers and organized crime to influence greater areas of the city by taking advantage of these choke-off points. Mayor Giuliani actually used NYC's very unique geography to his advantage, because by enacting certain gun control laws, the NYPD could control the flow of arms into vast high crime areas and the laws also thwarted the same tactic that many crime groups were using to their advantage in the criminal arms market. The only way to stop gun crime in NYC was to enact these certain gun control laws. Unless everyone in the city, including the bad guys, would agree to use their guns nicely, which would never obviously happen, this was the only realistic way to solve this local issue. However, Rudy is very much a libertarian and conservative constitutionalist. You have to distinguish from gun control in targeted areas to solve a local problem (which many conservative executives have employed) and gun rights as a general national principle.
Prove it, then we'll move on from there.
I'm sorry, I got my Presidents mixed up. Actually, the number and rate of increase of abortions in America was noticeably greater under Reagan than they were under Clinton. Yet, when Reagan took office, he upturned a flattened rate that had been taking place under Carter. And during W Bush's tenure, the rate of decline in abortions is dramatically less than the rate of decline in abortions that took place under Clinton.
During Carter's tenure, the dramatically rising level of abortions was flattened to about 1.2 million per year. Then Reagan took office and abortions saw a noticeable increase in numbers. By 1989, when Reagan left office, abortions were between 1.3 and 1.4 million per year. Abortions hit their highest peak in the middle of HW Bush's presidency, at close to 1.4 million per year. Then, Clinton was elected in 92, and abortions went down the most ever under his administration, settling at a little less than 0.8 million per year when he left office. That rate has pretty much remained level, with a barely noticeable decrease under W Bush. The CDC has all the stats on it and its available to the public.
The point being, the personal views on abortion of Presidents really hold very very little sway in the issue. It's not an issue that's going to be solved by electing Sam Brownback or Rick Santorum to the Oval Office. It's an issue that's going to be solved when Christians and pro-lifers get out and talk to people on a person-to-person basis and change minds one by one, and it's going to be solved when we elect a President who appoints strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds who won't legislate from the bench on behalf of pro-abortion activists. Rudy is one of, if not the, strongest advocate of such judges amongst all the '08 presidential contenders. Social issues really aren't the key issues in this race.
The key issues in the race here are the other principles of conservative leadership, like I said: fiscal discipline, welfare reform, education reform, tax cutting, smaller government, libertarianism (small l), racial equality (not affirmative action), law and order, going after terrorists, and strong national defense.
You still don't "get it". All NYC, and other places, have done, is lower the level of individual liberty to the level of societies lowest moral denominators. The Barbarians are still barbaric, and the law abiding are defenseless. New York may need Rudy, Mayberry doesn't!
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.