Social Issues Unlikely To Hurt Giuliani

The State ^ | 8/21/06

[areafiftyone]

The S.C. Republican Party’s sponsorship of “An Evening Honoring Rudy Giuliani” last week spoke volumes.

It reflected what some said is a shift in attitude toward GOP candidates with more liberal views on social issues.

There’s a greater degree of tolerance and acceptance, party officials said.

Giuliani, who rose to national prominence for his take-charge performance after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, supports gay rights, gun control and legalized abortion, which puts him at odds with most Republicans.

Nevertheless, he has traveled the country extensively on behalf of GOP candidates this year while acknowledging his own interest in a possible 2008 presidential bid.

Although his liberal stance on social issues is likely to disqualify him with religious conservatives, the former New York City mayor remains in great demand as a speaker before Republican groups.

In this visit — his first major political trip to South Carolina — Giuliani attended a fundraiser for conservative GOP congressional candidate Ralph Norman, the one-term state representative who is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. John Spratt, a 24-year House veteran in a hotly contested race in the 5th District.

Giuliani ended the day in Charleston at a star-studded $2,500-a-couple fundraiser for the state Republican Party.

He packed the place.

“Rudy is a very popular figure,” GOP chairman Katon Dawson said. “We didn’t have any problem with him coming.”

Giuliani, affectionately known as “America’s mayor,” is seen as middle-of-the-road by most voters nationally, according to Rasmussen Reports, an electronic survey company.

It found 36 percent of Americans see him as a political moderate, 29 percent said conservative, and 15 percent said liberal. Twenty percent are not sure.

Former state GOP chairman Barry Wynn said the party needs to take a fresh look at the way it regards new voters, especially those new residents who’ve settled along the coast and are starting to have an impact on state party politics.

Those voters tend to be more progressive in outlook and are more inclined to support someone like Giuliani.

“I think Rudy could be more popular in South Carolina than most people would think,” Wynn said.

The debate in 2008 isn’t going to be about tax cuts, abortion or Social Security reform — Republican favorites.

“The overarching issues this time will be national security and leadership,” Wynn said. “Everything else will fit under that.”

Such a scenario favors Giuliani, Greenville consultant Chip Felkel said.

Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a GOP activist, said Giuliani is in a “special category.”

He’s a “glittering personality” with star quality who can get away with supporting legalized abortion and gay rights.

His position on those social issues “would not hurt him as bad over the long haul as one may think. If John McCain had the same position, it would hurt him a lot worse.”

Needless to say, the hard-core religious right won’t surrender territory on social issues. They’d rather go down in flames than win.

But unless terrorists no longer are a threat to the United States, national security and leadership will be at the top of the issues heap in 2008.

Voters won’t be concerned about gay rights or abortion. What matters most will be their own security in a volatile world.

And the candidate who stands to benefit is Giuliani.

“If your house is on fire,” Wynn said, “you want a guy with the hose.”

[don-o]

Liz - your work on exposing Rudy is much appreciated. This junk is all driven by the MSM. But, the conservatives must find a champion.

[libbylu]

Everyone believes in closing the border, Bush, McCain, etc. The question is WHEN. I was for him until i found that out. The liberal UF students seem to love him, at least my daughter's friends, if nominated he would have tons of cross over votes. I am still hoping for a nominee who will enforce the laws like the little towns are having to do for themselves. Did Giuliani do that? I don't think so.

[areafiftyone]

Well right now everyone promises everything under the sun to get the nomination - we all know that. It's when they are in office that they truth comes out. They all say what we want them to.

[don-o]

Rudy and John Wayne in the same post! What a howler that is!! LOL!

In that movie, Rooster Cogburn would have the character played by Rudy under the jail for child murder.

To a LOT of activists on the "Christian Right" it as stark as that. And I'll keep shouting that out!

[rep-always]

I won't be in the primary. There, I will be voting for Allen or anyone as conservative as he is. But once the primaries are over and the Republican nominee is picked, he will have my vote, no matter who it is.

[TommyDale]

Well, let's get to the primaries before we just accept Giuliani or McCain as the saviors of the GOP. I think we can agree on that.

[rep-always]

I can agree with that. Let us all try to get a true conservative in there. I would love to see Newt in there. I think he is great. But once the primaries are completed, let us unite and fight the enemies of this country inside and out.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

The American people will not care about social issues if we get attacked or are threatened again.

Why would Rudy put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court if he's pro-choice?

[painter]

Terrorism could very well come to the streets of this country like Israel and that rifle in your closet might be the difference between life and death for your family. As for gun laws are you willing to bet your life on it?

[sitetest]

Dear Jake The Goose,

Well, perhaps you know 5000 REPUBLICANS who were at his speech. It's likely that the sort of folks who went to this speech were mostly the sort of Republicans who will dutifully vote for whomever has the "R" on his back.

I'm sure that many of these folks are socially conservative, but it's not likely that they're all (or even mostly) social conservatives.

I know folks like this. They try to get my wife and I to to go door-to-door knocking before the election with them, or sit at the polls on election day handing out candidate literature, etc. Sometimes we help, sometimes we don't. My wife and I do what we can, but Republican Party activities aren't central to our lives. To these folks, these activities are an important focus in their lives. In a sense, they're true believers. But they're true believers about the PARTY, not about any specific set of issues.

They're good folks, and we need 'em, as they're the really active folks that make a lot of good stuff happen.

But they don't completely represent the party as a whole, and they don't resemble social conservatives very much at all.

These are the same folks that got Mr. Bush, the father, re-nominated in 1992, even though he'd become toxic to supply-siders and low-taxers.

If the Republicans decide to throw overboard one part of the Republican coalition (social conservatives, in this case), it is unlikely that the Republican candidate will win.


sitetest

[Liz]

Nice going, Cal.

Full page ads of that flyer and letter, showcasing Rudolfo all puckered up to gays, will ditch this sucker's candidacy pronto.


Especially in Southern Black Churches----Black churchgoers are the ones who are behind the numerous failed gay marriage initiatives.

Black churchgoers are actually Democrats who feel so strongly on this issue, they vote for Republicans who oppose gay rights.

[libbylu]

I looked this up last week, after i saw that Rudy was for a very broad amnesty (he was my choice until then), and Romney is AGAINST ILLEGAL AMNESTY on the basis that people will always be crossing the borders if they know it's a free ride. He seems to really be for closing the borders. I don't think i am alone in this being a top issue in deciding who to vote for. I figure all the republican candidates would do well on national security.

[sitetest]

Dear qlangley,

If Mr. Giuliani could credibly pull off #3, he'd have some chance.

The difficulty is, however, that he has so identified himself with the pro-abort position that he will have to explicitly repudiate his prior beliefs (and statements). Up until this moment, he's been an extreme pro-abort, calling it a constitutional right, pushing for government funding of this constitutional right for poor women, refusing limitations on even partial-birth abortion, even saying that hypothetically he'd pay for his own daughter's abortion.

In calling something a constitutional right, he vitiates the whole "states' rights" position. After all, no states' rights trump fundamental individual liberties.

If he goes this route - trying to repudiate his extreme pro-abortion past, it'll be a dicey proposition. He'll certainly lose the support of those folks (about 10% of the entire electorate) who will only vote for someone who is adamantly pro-abortion, but he may not be sufficiently convincing to pick up much from that part of the electorate (something around 20%) that won't vote for anyone who is not in favor of overturning Roe.


sitetest

[Calpernia]

He isn't just 'all puckered up'. He is a member.

I posted the member list here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=9#9

That means he is a member of the same group that funded the antiwar movement during Vietnam and that SAME group morphed into the antiwar group opposing Iraq. Giulianni IS A MEMBER of this SOCIALIST group.

LGBT Vets at National Convention

Activists aim to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as gay and lesbian troops serve in combat abroad

By JOE KENNEDY

Gigi B. Sohn

Attending a national LGBT veterans’ convention this past weekend were: standing, Lara Ballard, vice president of the Washington, D.C. chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), and, seated, Angel Ramirez, of AVER’s New York City chapter, Denny Meyer, the New York chapter president, and Joe Kennedy, also a New York chapter member.

The weekend of May 21-23, over 100 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered veterans of the armed forces gathered for a landmark convention in Washington, D.C. to step up the campaign against the 10-year-old Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that bans LGBT troops from serving openly in the military.

The convention featured seminars, speeches and memorials as well lobbying with dozens of federal lawmakers. American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), a national organization of LGBT veterans, co-sponsored the convention along with Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

Activist and author Urvashi Vaid, a former head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, addressed the group and struck a chord when she said, “It’s all about LGBT people achieving equal rights under the law instead of being officially branded as second-class citizens. Every LGBT person has a vital stake in reaching that goal of legal equality, regardless of what one may think of the military or the institution of marriage.”

Opening day of the convention included a party at the new Human Rights Campaign (HRC) headquarters building, celebrating the 79th birthday of the gay rights pioneer Dr. Frank Kameny, a World War II veteran who sued the government and picketed the White House to end job discrimination against lesbians and gays long before the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

In another highlight of the AVER convention, a panel of insiders from the Clinton administration, discussed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. David Mixner, a gay Democratic fund-raiser and former Clinton aide, said Clinton could have kept his 1992 campaign promise to end the ban on gays and lesbians in the military if only the president had had the credibility of a respected commander in chief and ordered Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not to publicly lobby against lifting the ban.

What happened instead, Mixner related, was that after the LGBT community provided millions of dollars and votes to help get Clinton elected, none of Clinton’s key aides, like George Stephanopoulos, would lead on the issue for fear that association with gays and lesbians would hurt their careers and reputations as “serious” players in the administration.

Nathaniel Franks of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military presented compelling evidence that the policy is actually hurting unit cohesion and military effectiveness. Franks added that a recent Gallup poll shows that 79 percent of Americans, an all-time high, say that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

A retired admiral and two generals who came out in The New York Times last December spoke at convention events. Brigadier General Keith Kerr’s voice cracked as he described how living a lie to keep his job meant he could not even properly mourn the death of his beloved partner of 24 years when he died 3 years ago.

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Loomis has filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that under the principles affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned. The Army expelled Loomis in 1997 eight days shy of retirement after 20 years of service, with only half a lieutenant colonel’s pension.

Convention delegates also laid a wreath at the gravesite of Air Force Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich, who came out in 1973 and was on the cover of Time magazine. On his tombstone in the Congressional Cemetery is inscribed his famous quote: “My country gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one.”

[qlangley]

>>If he goes this route - trying to repudiate his extreme pro-abortion past, it'll be a dicey proposition. He'll certainly lose the support of those folks (about 10% of the entire electorate) who will only vote for someone who is adamantly pro-abortion, but he may not be sufficiently convincing to pick up much from that part of the electorate (something around 20%) that won't vote for anyone who is not in favor of overturning Roe.

I agree it is a very difficult issue for him to get past. I also agree with your estimate that the numbers who regard this as an acid test that trumps all other issues are limited, but still very significant.

Do recall, you can realistically win Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with around 30% of the vote in a ten person field.

By then you have a two person field. And you might find that neither of them is totally solid on social issues.

[don-o]

sitetest,

Spot 100% on!!

There seems to be a blind spot (elephant in the living room) about these pesky pro-lifers. You and I know, the, even though the Republicans are sometimes tagged as the Stupid Party, there are some limits to that.

And the life issue is one of those limits.

Post of, at least, the day!!

[sitetest]

Dear qlangley,

"By then you have a two person field. And you might find that neither of them is totally solid on social issues."

That's true. My own favorite of the moment is Sen. Allen. However, he's a pretty flawed candidate on social issues, especially abortion.

The trouble for Mr. Giuliani, however, is that once it narrows down to a two-person field, nearly any other Republican running against him will look like a true-blue down-the-line social conservative in comparison to Mr. Giuliani. As well, I'm unaware of any cut-and-runners among any leading potential Republican candidates. Thus, most candidate will be able to be credible on the war, while Mr. Giuliani will look like an alien from outer space on social issues.

In fact, if Mr. Giuliani actually does manage to survive the process to the point of being one of the last two candidates, it's possible that his effect will be merely to pull his remaining opponent toward a more hawkish position on the war.

It isn't impossible by any stretch for Mr. Giuliani to get the nomination, but it is unlikely.

However, in that his nomination will fracture (and potentially destroy) the party's coalition, it will be a darn sight harder to win the general election in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Thanks!

[Liz]

Republican Party Hijack Alert

When you see posts like: "Rudy offers conservatives a man who will really fight the WOT the way it needs to be fought," these are the Endless War Hopefuls. The Hopefuls have posted starkly revealing statements about their plans to hijack the party and dump social conservatives. Here's a choice few:

....." if the international or financial scene gets truly dangerous that would motivate voters to go with a proven leader like Rudy, Pence or Newt instead of an untested politically correct social conservative..... ..... the last thing the conservative movement needs in this perilous age is to be hijacked by cultural fanatics who coulden't (sic) find Irag (sic) on a map or read a balance sheet if it was stapled to their foreheads because there (sic) worried about a queer under their bed......"

One of Rudy's ardent supporters went on to opine ".....when madmen want to kill us very minute of the day and night, when a crazy Iran is about to go nuclear, when an already nuclear and lunatic North Korea is experimenting with aiming missiles at the United States, and with Americans bleeding and dying in an unfinished Iraq and Afghanistan, just maybe, one should put pushing the 'Conservative' agenda aside for a while and pick the person best suited to deal with the life and death issues of our time....."

Got that pro-lifers? Forget the conservatve agenda----throw social conservatives off the lifeboat. Looks like fomenting "The truly dangerous financial scene that would motivate voters to vote for Rudy" is The Plan to ditch conservatives off the Republican lifeboat.

These are the people fishing for conservative votes, the people conservatives will be stuck with having to deal with, should by some perverted twist of fate, Rudy gets to the WH.

We need to ask ourselves what else these ruthless people are prepared to do to hijack the Republican party from social conservatives.

[Young Scholar]

Tough choice; support the socially liberal RINO or surrender to the RATS.

That's a ridiculous dichotomy to assume at this point.