Posted on 11/15/2006 7:30:55 AM PST by 300magnum
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys "a lot of good will" from Republicans from his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but his stance on social issues like abortion and gun control make him an unacceptable candidate in the 2008 presidential election, according to conservative analysts.
Giuliani, who announced Monday that he has filed papers to form an exploratory committee as the first step towards a White House run, is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances" as a presidential candidate, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, told Cybercast News Service.
"The core values of the Republican Party with respect to life issues -- which is where our main concern is -- and the issues of the homosexual movement, etc., cause his candidacy for the nomination to just be dead in the water," she said.
Giuliani has described himself as "pro-choice" and said he would not support a ban on partial-birth abortions. He promoted gun control programs and civil unions for same-sex partners during his two terms as New York City mayor.
While serving in that post, Giuliani saw his private life become a regular subject of media scrutiny, especially in 2000, when he announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his second wife without first telling her of his decision.
"Despite Giuliani's charm and his obvious leadership abilities, as far as social and cultural issues are concerned, not only his personal life but his public views make him unacceptable," Parro said.
Supporters of a Giuliani bid launched a group a year ago called Draft Rudy Giuliani for President.
Co-founder Nicholas Tyszka said in a statement this week that, "with the current climate [of divisiveness] in Washington," Giuliani would be an excellent nominee, as "he has such a broad base of appeal, even cutting across political lines."
The group, whose other co-founder is veteran Republican political consultant Allen Fore, said that "America needs and wants this great man to lead our nation."
"Named Time Magazine's 'Person of the Year' in 2001, Rudy Giuliani has been a proven leader during one of the toughest periods in American history," the organization's website states.
"Giuliani exemplifies leadership, courage and compassion," it says. "Rudy Giuliani has dedicated his professional life to serving the United States, including assistant attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department under President Reagan and as the crime-fighting U.S. attorney in the state of New York.
"He has an unrivaled record of honesty and integrity, always putting the people's interest above politics," the website continues. "His service as mayor of New York City, particularly after the devastating terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001, made him America's mayor. Now it's time to make him America's president."
Although forming an exploratory committee does not guarantee that an individual will run for president, Giuliani's announcement Monday drew a quick response from the Democratic National Committee:
"It's unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just 'explain away' the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear," said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney in a press statement.
"Throughout his career, Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate, but now that he's vying for his party's nomination, will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far right?" Finney asked.
The DNC also issued a speedy response after Sen. John McCain made a similar announcement on Sunday.
Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that "it's going to be virtually impossible for Giuliani to woo voters who put the Second Amendment and family values as their top issues."
However, Giuliani "clearly has a lot of good will with Republicans, and his goal should be to shore up his conservative credentials on the issues of federal spending and anti-terrorism," Darling said.
Since he was mayor of New York City during 9/11, Giuliani "can trumpet anti-terrorism as one of his major policies. But he also needs to talk about limiting the federal government and restricting out-of-control federal spending so he can shore up support among conservatives who care about pocketbook issues," Darling said.
While acknowledging that Giuliani is "a presumptive front-runner" for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Darling said the former mayor is enjoying good poll numbers "merely because he has high name recognition."
Strong approval figures don't guarantee victories when the party's primaries begin, Darling noted.
"Just ask [early 2004 Democratic front-runner] Howard Dean about that," he said.
Totally and completely agree. Rudy as the nominee = president Hillary.
Totally and completely agree. Rudy as the nominee = president Hillary.
OK, enjoy Hillary. You are not a team player.
BTW, Keyes was a jerk.
Let me ask you this. What would make Rudy unacceptable in your eyes? Take your time.
I'd love to hear what he has to say, but I'm not optimistic he's going to convince me of anything. Ignoring his personal life temporarily, there are some MAJOR issues that, if I think I understand where he is, I disaggree with him on. Fundamental issues that are why I vote Republican. I'll wait to hear what he says on that, though. Maybe I'll be suprised by what he has to say. I will never happily vote for someone who is pro-choice or pro gun control over someone who is not.
If it goes down to McCain v. Giulianni, it'll be a tough decision. There's GOTTA be someone else out there besides these two. I don't know anything about Romney yet to have an opinion.
The marriage between Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman was probably a difficult one because both were working on their acting careers and from their individual accomplishments during that period of time it would seem they didn't have a lot of time to devote to their marriage or each other.
This was the real reason for Reagan's Divorce. I'm not saying the death of the poor child that was born prematurely didn't help but basically they each had two separate movie careers that contributed BIG TIME to the divorce.
Please do not fool yourself. If conservatives won't vote for him, we lose the election. We have to find a candidate that is acceptable to all of us or we are going to be a minority party for a loooooong time. The media has selected Rudy in a dress and McInsane for us so that we will lose the election.
Christie Todd Whitman was a what Republican?
Liberal Republican.
There are endless examples. i won't bother posting 100 Liberal/Moderate Republicans.
My statement is correct, Conservative is a social label.
The good news is we have the potential candidates pretty well pegged right now...history and facts will not change. I don't think America can afford ANOTHER liberal Republican --- certainly not a hard Marxist, like Clinton, in the White House (my worst nightmare).
Titans,
My eyes are fine, thank you.I am not a conservative, but a republican (there is a difference, please make an effort to find out what it is), and so I can see perfectly.
It's your OPINION that "Rudy is wrong". It is my OPINION that perhaps he's worth listening to before he gets trashed.
"That has nothing to do with purity or theocracy. "
When the greatest criticsim and resistance thus far come from the religious and the ideologues, then, yes, it most certainly DOES have everything to do with purity and theocracy. The one source (other than a democrat!) quoted here is from a Right-to-life spokesperson, so I can reasonably (I believe) presume where her beliefs spring from. Why is it, do you think, that there are no quotes, pro or con, from say, a business leader, or a libertarian or, GASP!, just plain 'ol Jim from up the street in this piece? Because it was written in such a way as to agitate the Moral and the Religious, that's why.
And it's worked.
And it's hardly fair or informative.
In the meantime, anything the man might have to say will be ignored and he will be hounded for not walking lock-step with "conservative" ideology, even when there's a great deal of conservatism in his background. The purpose of THIS article, and the vast majority that I have seen in the last two days, has been to highlight the NEGATIVE while ignoring the POSITIVE. All have played up the "unseemly personal life" angle.
In the meantime, we have these petty arguments and never get around ot fair and balanced debate on anything, and never find any common ground. You might call acting in such a fashion "principled", I call it stupid. I want to know everything I can before I'm forced to hold my nose and pull the lever for "bad" and "worse". You don't mind if we exercise that right and responsibility, do you?
Would you please add me to your Rudy ping list?
They would. And he should run as a Democrat. Then, if he is really as popular as they would have us to believe, he could defeat Hillary in the primaries, then we could have a showdown between liberals and conservatives in November.
Sure! :-)
Sad, isn't it?
Regards
Oh...so now we're examining "reasons" for divorce to judge whether or not a candidate is acceptable?!?
My point is that this knee-jerk reaction to anyone who doesn't adhere 1000% to the so-called conservative ideology will get us nowhere except permanent minority status. Judging by today's closed-mindedness on the part of some conservatives, most if not all of the previous GOP presidents would never have been able to make it out of the primaries.
And to your point of the Reagans' divorce, George and Barbara Bush also lost a child at a young age, yet they stayed together.
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.