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.
""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?"
Considering the far right set this requirement for a nomination, why wouldn't anyone who seriously wanted the job do just that?
How can you complain, on the one hand, that there must be standards for a candidate and then ridicule or dismiss that candidate when he attempts to conform to those standards? I'll bet that many here that scream "fag-lover", "gun-grabber" and other nonsense would, withouth giving it a second thought or without recognizing the hypocrisy, change their minds shoudl Guliani repudiate everything he's believed for the last 40 years if it dovetailed with therir personal pet peeves and issues.
The pot calls the kettle black and then assumes the moral high ground for itself? How convenient.
And human beings, being the opportunistic lot they are, if they wanted something badly enough, cannot be expected to tell folks what they wanted to hear if it suited their goals?
The fact is that the "far right" in this party DOES set the tone and the rules by which candidates will be judged. It isn't fair, is all I'm saying. And that when it comes back to bite you on the backside (like it did with the last Congress), you have no one to blame but yourself and your narrow focus on a social issues to the detriment of everything else. So long as Congress was passing Midnight-resolutions to save the brain dead and putting "Defense of Marriage" acts into the agenda, no one gave a crap that they plundered the treasury and manipulated the apparatus of government for their own benefit. Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Denny Hastert could get away with what they did because they had passed the "Conservative" litmus tests on their way up, and they believed all they had to do was to continue the same activity forever and anon. No one would DARE question them on anything else when they could point to Alito, Roberts and the "Save Terri" hubbub. After all, that's what they were elected to do, wasn't it? The preachers at all them rubber-chicken banquets at the West Butt-f*ck Chamber of Commerce dinner said so.
They then behaved as you would expect self-interested, I'll-tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear apparatchiks to do when they believe "the Base" wouldn't ever, ever abandon them. They had, after all, talked the talk and did it once before, why shouldn't they get away with it again?
The bar has been set impossibly high to begin with, and this "we need to be more conservative next time" attitude will only exacerbate it. Either we will get more of the same, or we will be immune to new ideas and concepts, and stagnate. We will NEVER get a perfect candidate in terms of someone who can espouse both political and social conservatism; we live in a republic, with co-equal branches of government that operate in a system of checks and balances (or at least, that's what the Constitution says),and that alone guarentees that anyone who believes we can is going to be sorely disappointed.
A little more pragmatism and a little less stubborness might be just what this party needs. Unfortunately, from the tone of this debate,we'll never get the chance to see if it might work.
Okay, good luck with all that.
Where did I say you used the word 'Nazi'? Re-read my post more carefully.
As for the rest, what the heck are you talking about? Are you getting paid by the word? Sheesh.
Couldn't agree more.
Maybe you should read more, Grace?
What I have been saying all along is: at least give the man a hearing!
The message, since the man announced the formation of the committee, has been: he's far too liberal socially for most of "us" to stand, therefore, he can't POSSIBLY have anything to add to the debate. Teh attack is on Gulianin the MAN and not Guliani the philosophy because he hasn't had the chance to make the philosophy known!
The fact that the original article quotes exactly ONE conservative (with a fairly-easy to discren ideological bias) and exactly ONE democratic-party-agent-provacateur, to make this case, makes it obvious to anyone capable of breathing wihtout mechanical assistance that an unofficial censorship is being applied.
And it was YOU that accused me of accusing those who demand moral and ideological obedience of being Nazis. I merely pointed out that a) it wasn't true and b) you obvioulsy know nothing about Nazis, and just for fun c) if the shoe fits, wear it. Censorship is an ugly thing and it's terrible that we're engaged in it.
As for "being paid by the word", I'm sorry, but I cannot express an opinion in three and four letter words and still make it easy for you to understand. I went to school and passed all my subjects, you see. If reading bores and tires you out, then I can see just why it is that you think what you seem to do on the subject of a Guliani candidacy.
Yep...I don't see a candidate out there that is electable from the right. Plus with Mel Martinez apparently going to the head of the RNC and Trent Lott gaining a little bit of power, the base will be completely turned off and sit out.
The best way to look at this is that after 8 years of Hillary, we should be done with the Clintoons in office?
But what Rudy might lose on the Religious Right he could pick up in the middle with fiscal Conservatives/Libertarians/Moderates who don't want a Jerry Falwell in the White House lecturing them on personal/moral issues.
Second amendment and family issues will prevent him from being elected for dog catcher.
He did a good service during the 9-11 event and, worked tirelessly, which buy the way was his duty as an elected official.
He would be a danger to the conservative principles, and ideas
on which we hold, these truths to be self evident.
"....on which we hold, these truths to be self evident."
And which have been so self-evident over the past six years, right?
Perhaps it's worth at least listening to different singer for a few minutes before we decide the show is over.
The fact that Giuliani and Romney are now taking conservative stances while appealing to the GOP primary electorate is an old technique Republican Presidential candidates have used since Richard Nixon ran in 1968. Their respective records and political stances while public office holders in their respective states were decidedly liberal. To his credit, McCain's record is not as liberal as those of Romney or Giuliani. However, his record has been one of compromise with the liberal Democrats in the Senate, as evidenced by the notorious McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" bill. There is no reason to suppose that an administration led by any of these three men will be better in achieving conservative goals than that of the current President and plenty of cause to believe the reverse, based on their past careers and political statements.
If the RINOs shut conservatives out of the Republican Party, we will face a bleak future: socialism, moral degeneracy, and loss of national identity by the glass (RINOs) or by the bottle (Democrats). Our political system makes a viable, competitive third party a near impossibility. Real Americans might as well abandon politics and look out for themselves and their loved ones as best as they can.
>>Win in the marketplace of ideas.
Unfortunately, I think they did just last week.
Well, there's you first mistake right there. NEVER burnish your credentials with conservatives by citing approval from the mainstream media. Locally, when I hear a campaign ad that says "Endorsed by the Austin American-Statesman,..." I know to stear clear of his RINO ass and go find a real conservative.
I want guys the media ignores or despises.
Anyone the press fawns over as much as they do Guliani (especially if he's a republican) is not qualified to be president IMO. That would include Keating McCain too.
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.