Posted on 02/06/2007 4:03:31 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading pro-life advocate says he thinks Rudy Giuliani is too pro-abortion to deserve support form the overwhelming majority of Republican voters who are pro-life. Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, says he doesn't think the former New York mayor will be able to capture the party's nod.
Giuliani moved another step closer to a full-fledged candidacy on Monday by filing a statement of candidacy and removing the words "testing the waters" from his exploratory committee papers.
He has a high standing the polls both nationally and in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire but Perkins says that's simply because of his high name identification.
"At this point most people have no idea where candidates stand on the issues, the polls simply reflect name ID," Perkins told CBN.
"Giuliani is known for his impressive leadership in the wake of 9/11, but most pro-family Americans do not yet realize how far outside of the mainstream of conservative thought that Mayor Giuliani social views really are," Perkins added. "Once people focus on this election and the candidates Giuliani's lead will diminish."
Should Giuliani get the party's nod for president, Perkins said it would likely hand the White House over to the Democratic candidate because pro-life voters would have no one to support.
The last several elections have been between pro-life Republican and pro-life Democratic candidates and a Giuliani nomination would change that dynamic.
"If by some chance Giuliani were to gain the Republican nomination it would set up a very similar scenario that we had last November," Perkins told CBN. "A unenthusiastic Republican base which will suppress turnout and set up a Democratic victory."
Republican voters have previously turned away pro-abortion candidates from capturing the primary nod, including former California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. Republicans haven't had a pro-abortion nominee since Gerald Ford in 1976.
When asked to respond to social issues on CNN's Inside Politics in a 1999 interview, Giuliani replied, "I'm pro-choice."
In the same CNN interview he also indicated he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Giuliani also indicated he would have upheld President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.
"Yes. I said I then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it," he told the New York Times in November 1999.
The former mayor also backs embryonic stem cell research, which pro-life groups oppose because it requires the destruction of human life to obtain the stem cells.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are the top two candidates in the polls apart from Giuliani.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are also running and drawing significant support from the pro-life community.
Other potential Republican candidates include pro-life former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pro-life Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, pro-life Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson.
Are you suggesting guys like Gingrich and Santorum are "Rockefeller Republicans?"
What are you smoking, I want some.
Why is everyone so worried about him, then?
Namely because a large number of the money and bull**** crowd has gotten behind Rudy. And with a compressed, front-loaded primary schedule next year, that can overcome a lot of negatives.
The real problem is not that Rudy can win the nomination. He well might do just that. He just cannot win the general.
No. But Rudy is though. Go back and look again. Newt brought his own demise upon himself. As such I could not support him again for a high office. If he wants back in politics he needs to go into state level elected offices and rebuild from there. IOW the Georgia House. It's up to him to prove himself again.
But by compromising his office he opened up a crack to where LIBERALS within the GOP could come in and take over control of agenda tossing such trivial isses as the Contract With America aside. Remember for two years the new GOP Majorty was hot then they became the other DEMs.
Look I don't have anything against Santorum personally. He seem to vote OK. But many forgot this he campaigned hard for some die hard liberal RINO's. Whittman for one. Specter being another. Remember them? Christie helped Bob Dole loose by turning off the base. Specter is another RINO the GOP does not need. I'm not sure but that kinda history likely cost him his seat. It was preventable.
Now look harder. Bill Paxon's wife is a former congresswoman from NY state. She and Whittman were keynote speakers at the 1996 GOP Convention and were in effect pushing the Rockefeller agenda.
No really Newt was pretty brilliant and he did help get things going. But here is my point. When you are in a position related to national security or elected office where you can be blackmailed because of personal conduct it is your responsibility not to jeopadize your office or position.
BTW I'd take Sanatorum over Tom Ridge or Tommy Thompson any day. That clear enough? :>}
What are you smoking, I want some.
History. Wanna try a hit or two? It clears up the mind :>}
Actually, I have to agree with most of that post. Rudy IS a Rockefeller Republican, I've never thought otherwise.
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.