Posted on 08/30/2006 9:09:02 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention. That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated. However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake. Here's a short, but sweet primer on some of Rudy's many flaws.
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
Soft on Gay Marriage
Other than tax cuts, the biggest domestic issue of the 2004 election was President Bush's support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani has taken a "Kerryesque" position on gay marriage.
Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:
His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."
Here's more from the New York Daily News:
"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."
Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.
Pro-Illegal Immigration
As Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has pointed out, Rudy is an adherent of the same approach to illegal immigration that John McCain, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Harry Reid have championed:
"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."
That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
A More Charismatic Version of Arlen Specter
Rudy Giuliani may have many fine qualities, but he is not a conservative, nor has he always been a loyal Republican.
For example, back in the mid-nineties, when he was actually running New York City, Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst:
* "The National Journal’s rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."
The New York Observer also had a very interesting selection of quotes from and about Rudy over the years that may give his conservative supporters more than a little pause. Here are a few of those quotations:
* Some ask, How can the Liberal Party support a candidate who disagrees with the Liberal Party position on so many gut issues? But when the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion. -- N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of R. Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989
* Mr. Rockefeller represented "a tradition in the Republican Party I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, July 9, 1992
* What kind of Republican? Is [Giuliani], for instance, a Reagan Republican? [Giuliani] pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican." -- Village Voice, January 24, 1989
* "Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, [Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group."
* Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, he explained: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." -- Rudy - An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459
* "From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, 'Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." -- Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133
* "[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor. In his heart, he's a Democrat. He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo. But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out. Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." -- Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S., Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994
Does this really sound like the sort of candidate we want as a standard bearer for the Republican Party?
He Can't Keep His Pants Up
There has only been one man who has ever made it to the White House after being divorced and that was Ronald Reagan, who had been married to Nancy for more than 25 years before his campaign in 1980. Rudy, on the other hand, is on his third wife.
Furthermore, his second divorce from Donna Hanover was extremely ugly. Hanover accused Rudy of "open and notorious adultery." She also claimed Rudy had an affair with a staffer, Christyne Lategano-Nicholas, which both Giuliani and Lategano-Nicholas denied. However, Rudy has acknowledged that he started seeing his current wife, Judith Nathan, before his divorce from Hanover was finalized in 2002.
Given how recent this divorce was, Rudy's adultery, and the fact that he married, "the other woman," the press can be expected to cover Rudy's marriage to Hanover exhaustively if he gets the nomination and needless to say, Rudy, quite deservedly, will not come off very well.
Does He Have The Judgment To Be President?
As you've just seen, Rudy hasn't necessarily made the best decisions in his personal life. Unfortunately, the Bernard Kerik incident shows that Giuliani's poor judgment can spill over into political matters as well.
Rudy recommended his friend and business partner, Bernard Kerik, for the position of Homeland Security Secretary and the Bush administration, perhaps because Rudy vouched for him, didn't do a very thorough job of vetting him.
Soon after Kerik's nomination became public, allegations surfaced that Kerik was having two simultaneous affairs, had ties to a construction company "linked to the mob," and had an illegal alien nanny whose taxes hadn't been paid. Under fire from the press, Kerik withdrew his name from consideration for the Homeland Security position and the Bush administration was left with egg on its face for putting up such a scandal ridden nominee.
While the whole debacle was embarrassing for the Bush Administration, it raised even more serious questions about Rudy. After all, if Bernard Kerik is the sort of person Rudy sees as an appropriate friend, business partner, and nominee to run the Homeland Security Department, it makes you wonder what kind of people he is surrounding himself with on a day to day basis.
How Electable Is Rudy Giuliani Really?
One of the biggest selling points for Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be that he's "electable" because a lot of independents and Democrats will vote for him. The problem with that sort of thinking is that if he becomes the Republican nominee, the very liberal mainstream media will spend nine months relentlessly savaging him in an effort to help the Democrats. Because of that, Giuliani's sky high polling numbers with non-Republicans are 100% guaranteed to drop significantly before election time rolls around in 2008.
That is not necessarily a problem; after all the mainstream media is always against the Republican nominee, if -- and this is a big "if" -- the GOP nominee has strong support from the Republican base.
The big problem Rudy has is that he isn't going to be able to generate that kind of support. For one thing, as a candidate, he offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn't have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues -- like Rudy -- you can be sure that millions of "moral values voters" will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.
The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn't going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.
Also, the reason why George Bush's approval numbers have been mired in the high thirties/low forties of late is because he has lost a significant amount of Republican support, primarily because his domestic policies aren't considered conservative enough. Since that's the case, running a candidate who is several steps to Bush's left on domestic policy certainly doesn't seem like a great way to unite the base again.
Conclusion
Despite all of his charisma and the wonderful leadership he showed after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is not a Reagan Republican. To the contrary, Giuliani is another Christie Todd Whitman, another Arlen Specter, another Olympia Snowe. He's a throwback to the "bad old days" before Reagan, when the GOP was run by moderate Country Club Republicans who considered conservatives to be extremists. Trying to revive that failed strategy again is likely to lead to a Democratic President in 2008 and numerous setbacks for the Republican Party.
Okey dokey
Oh Liz - now come on - it's not all that bad....
"the sky is falling"
Your comments are all wet. The very idea put forward that Rudy is for the "the most radical, left-wing approach" is laughable.
Thanks for the laughs though.
Get it in you head that the past is not prologue to this coming election.
Republicans are unpopular with an unpopular war hanging as an albatross. Maybe, just maybe, if there was an outstandingly singular Conservative candidate of renown and accomplishment he/she could overcome that handicap. There isn't anyone even close. There isn't one that has a chance period.
The problem true believers of any stripe have is that they come to believe that the majority feels as they do. For every social Conservative who runs away from Giuliani, ten Independents and four Democrats would vote for him. If he is the nominee, he wins.
He also causes a realignment of Jews and large segments of Catholic Democrats in Democrat States.
If the dogmatic social conservatives feel they can't participate any longer as Republicans in a time of war, and they insist on leaving what the country considers the legitimate mainstream, let them form a Party and we will be able to judge their purity and their strength.
I think if the hardcore fiscal conservatives were to look at Giulaini's governing record as mayor of liberal NYCity, they'd see that while Rudy had some success halting the advance of far out socialism in his first term, his second term was a different story. Rudy left NYCity with a $2-billion dificit and a $42-billion debt. Conservatives need to get all the facts on Giuliani before they jump on his liberal bandwagon.
Dear Sabramerican,
"Republicans are unpopular with an unpopular war hanging as an albatross."
I actually agree with this. However, your conclusions from this fact contradict the fact itself.
The folks who most strongly support the War on Terror, as well as the Iraq War are conservatives and Republicans.
Other than possibly Jews, the folks LEAST likely to vote for Mr. Giuliani because he supports Mr. Bush's prosecution of both the wider war and the Iraq War are liberals and Democrats (and independents, as well, since the majority of these folks are dubious on the Iraq War, at the very least, as well).
There is no liberal constituency for a perceived hawk on the wider war and the Iraq War.
Mr. Giuliani's natural constituency for his hawkish position is the base of the Republican coalition.
However, in being nearly a complete liberal, Mr. Giuliani alienates a significant portion of this base.
"...Catholic Democrats in Democrat States."
I have very bad news for you - Catholic Democrats are among the folks least likely to vote for Mr. Giuliani. These folks are mostly against Mr. Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror, and they're mostly against the Iraq War. These folks will have no problem voting for Mrs. Clinton, just as they had no problem voting for Mr. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, or Mr. Gore.
But the news gets worse. Mr. Giuliani will lose a considerable portion of even Catholics who often vote for Republicans. These are the Catholics most likely to support Mr. Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror, and to support the Iraq War. These are also the voters most likely to refuse to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Although I don't see many of them voting for a Democrat, I do foresee a significant percentage refusing to vote for Mr. Giuliani.
God forbid that he should be the Republican nominee, that would be fatal to his general election campaign.
sitetest
Here's a good analysis of the religious vote.
MAJOR STUDY BY THE PEW FORUM ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE:
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives (this means you, Rudy)
SOURCE: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QS6fK2c8AP0J:pewforum.org/events/index.php%3FEventID%3D115
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum.
Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data. For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years. White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square.
While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs. Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
My brother lived in NY during the Rudy years, and he (who votes democrat) is a total fan of Rudys.
This is a good take on the Catholic vote.
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS ISSUE MEMO ON LOSS OF CATHOLICS
Washington, DC, Apr. 13, 2005 (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life, which the authors called "a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest."
The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called "Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats."
The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than 1,000 white Catholic voters.
The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.
It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would.
The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied Communion by the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.
The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics' current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time.
While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study.
Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate.
The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]elieves in a woman's right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."
This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients, and abortions.
SOURCE http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36492
You build a straw man re Giuliani and then you knock him down.
This is the challenge to you and anyone who believes as you do. Polls say Giuliani can win.
But forget the polls. Make me laugh.
Name a single American politician- who Social Conservatives would readily accept- who has a chance of being elected President in 2008. Ironically it will have to be someone I have never heard of because ALL the mentionables are unelectable.
Maybe we can wait for a Deus Ex Machine political savior to appear in the next few months.
I will get no pleasure out of saying I told you so post election day.
I hate to be the one to burst your little dream bubble, Jake-----but your thought stream is entirely alien to conservatives.
Who knew the conservative learning curve was that steep, eh, reaganman?
If you want democrat policies, why don't you just vote for a democrat?
Every new poll with Rudy at the top gives these kooks heartburn. :)
I will. :)
I understand that politics change with each election cycle. This will be my eleventh Presidential election campaign. Sorry. I don't buy into your contention that Rudy Giuliani is the right candidate for 2008, and the best the GOP can offer to its primary voters. We'll see what happens and who the candidtaes are in November 2008.
I've been fighting for conservative principles and against liberalism for the better part of the last four decades. That includes a solid Republican voting record. 100% of the time. Right now no one in the GOP has announced their intentions for 2008. Jumping on the Giuliani bandwagon this early shows you have a case of misplaced political priorities. As far as I can tell, Giuliani would be a disaster for the future of conservatism and the GOP.
Rudy's foray into Southern territory (was supposed to serve as the proving ground to show he could rally conservatives) was a big flop. Georgia's Ralph Reed lost amid pics of Rudy campaigning and glad-handing Southern voters.
Onward to South Carolina and another Rudy flop.
BTW, even ultra-liberal Democrat NY Governor Mario Cuomo lost after being endorsed by Mayor Rudy.
Maybe Rudy'd have better luck endorsing candidates for dog-catcher.
“The attack on life doesn't begin in the womb. It begins in the minds of people.”
--Ron Galloy
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.