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.
Yes it does because I sure won't vote for Rudy.
And the party that would nominate a non-conservative to represent conservatives would have clean hands?
The PETA crowd must be outraged that he had that 'fur coat'. Very non-PC....lol
You’re desires are irrelevant in the political process. You have made them irrelevant by your actions. You vote for whoever the party nominates. They don’t have to earn your vote. Your vote is put to bed and counted. They don’t have to care what you think or what you want. They already have what they want from you.
They have to earn back the conservative votes they pi$$ed away or they will elect Democrats. There just aren’t enough of you “I’ll vote for any Republican” voters to win an election. If you don’t want to be watching Hillary’s inauguration, you better start pushing for a conservative candidate who can earn back the conservative votes.
Character DOES matter. I never implied that it didn't. Don't even try to make that argument, because it's a false one with regards to me.
On the other hand, having been raised a Catholic, I wasn't aware that God insisted that:
a) Repentence be a public affair
b) Sinners be empowered to judge other sinners
c) Forgiveness was entrusted to the most fallible of his creations to dispense, and not his personal domain.
"Conservatism is term descriptive of social/moral/cultural right-wingers"- and what about right wing libertarians? I'd say the term applies to the sociological sphere only [i.e. to what and how people do to one another, via government or directly]. Everything else does not apply, and ought to be irrelevant, per Jeffersonian dictum that the religion [or the lack thereof] of his neighbor neither breaks his [Jefferson's] leg nor picks his pocket [and hence ought to be irrelevant as long as it stays that way]. The same ought to apply to the neighbor's culture [or the lack thereof] and morals. And if Jefferson was not a conservative, then who was?
I had a carry pistol permit in NYC for 19 years and Rudy took it away (from me and hundreds of others like me) when he got in as mayor. We had done nothing wrong. He not only talks about gun-grabbing, he actually does it.
"You must be utterly daft if you think that command applies in this situation..."
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that Jesus had a list of the select few to which this standard would be appplied.
"By that reasoning we might as well all be democrats."
Check your thought processes, friend. What does this have to do with republican or democrat?
"It saddens me to see someone make such a stupid comment as yours."
Now THAT'S a first! Quote Jesus on FR and get called stupid!
So what does that say about your religion, then, if it can be applied as you see fit? When it's tenets are mutable and you can selectively choose to practice it when it suits your needs here, or use it as a weapon when it suits your needs there?
Don't be a hypocrite and then try to explain it away as a "political preference". It's religious and moral snobbery, plain and simple.
And i the meantime, actual political debate is squashed and no information which might actually help the cause is being squashed.
Oh forget about that. Just vote for him because he has a R after his name. Everything will be fine.
"They are making threats as usual. Saying that they won't vote if Rudy is nominated."
Well, 2008 is still some time away. We need to take a hard look for other potential candidates that MAY be acceptable to the ( more of) the base.
Wasn't the directive to all the people fed up with RINOS that the time to weed them out was in the primaries?
I say the garden needs weeding, and discussion and disagreement at this point is a healthy thing!
Rudy should be D.O.A.
We might as well nominate Lincoln Chafee, he's not busy right now, quick, get him before he defects to the Dims.
[Tancredo 08!]
Ahhh then that means the millions of people who want Rudy for president in poll after poll in all 50 states are irrelevant because some people on Free Republic who don't like Rudy say so? Did you ever consider that Rudy got the idea of running because wherever he goes people tell him they WANT him to run? I love Free Republic but even I know that what we say and want is not what the rest of America wants as we saw what happened in 2006.
Hillary might beat him because a LOT of people like you and me might just stay home on election day or vote for some third party candidate.
"and no information which might actually help the cause is being squashed."
Excuse me, that should read:
"And information which might actually help the cause is being squashed".
Need more coffee, I think.
You never have, and besides that attitude got us where we are. Libertarianism is no friend to conservatism.
Many here including myself predicted exactly what would happen this election, but not many including me imagined the depth of the defeat GW/Rove would bring us.
What you like or dislike does not matter you will be relegated to a permanent minority, as soon as GW gets the immigration bill he wants.
So go ahead a wail a gnash your teeth, only an Act of God will save us from this mess.
In case you miss my tagline...;.
If the GOP does not do something about immigration, immigration will do something about the GOP
Nancee
I will NOT support RUDY for president. He is far too Liberal!
"He is far too Liberal!"
What you mean is "libertine". There is a difference.
Since the republican party is, at it's foundation, a liberal party (in terms of Classical Liberalism), I should think what we need is MORE liberals, not less.
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.