>>"The American people will not care about social issues if we get attacked or are threatened again."
>>LOL! That has to qualify as the dumbest statement of the day!
It is dumb, but mostly because 'the American people' are not a monolith. Nor are 'Republican primary voters'.
Many people certainly will care about these issues, but others will be willing to put them aside, still others think they are important, but don't share your views on them.
The support which Giuliani will be able to gather in a primary campaign depends on a whole range of factors, none of which are particularly predictable.
1. The extent to which people are voting on the GWOT first and other issues second. Many certainly will, but how many depends on how things progress between now and then.
2. The extent to which social issues might have been diffused. If W has replaced Stevens and Ginsburg on the Court by then, many social issues will be in the hands of governors not presidents.
3. The extent to which Giuliani is prepared to move on the issues. He might, for example, promise to appoint strict constructionist judges and oppose Roe, while saying he would favour his own state (NY) then choosing to adopt liberal abortion laws while others went in a different direction. On guns I am sure he will adopt a federalist position: "What's right for New York City is not always right for Wyoming. Duh! Next question".
4. The breadth and strength of the rest of the field.
I am not suggesting that ALL social conservatives could ever be won over to Giuliani. But under some circumstances many could. Since he already has supporters among those with more liberal or libertarian views, and those who simply prioritise national security and economics well ahead of social issues, he could emerge as a strong contender.
Giuliani will never win over the Southern or Midwestern Conservatives to win a general election. It won't happen.
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