Conservatives target Rudy

Newsday ^ | Feb 8 2007 | CRAIG GORDON

[Reagan Man]

WASHINGTON -- Eager to head off Rudolph Giuliani's recent gains in the polls, conservative activists this week strengthened their attacks, with some promising to step up their efforts on the Internet, talk radio and "below-the-radar" to discredit him going forward.

They are taking direct aim at one of Giuliani's strongest selling points, at least to some backers -- that he is the Republicans' best hope of stopping Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These critics argue that his nomination would prompt a conservative third-party candidate to join the race and split the GOP vote, clearing the way for Clinton's election.

"There's no way conservatives could stand for Giuliani becoming the Republican nominee," said Richard Viguerie, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement. "I guarantee whoever the Democrats nominate would be the next president."

~ship~

He backed off his earlier opposition to a ban on the medical procedure referred to as partial-birth abortion, and expressed support for gun owners' Second Amendment rights, even though as New York mayor he sued gun manufacturers and argued that more guns lead to more crime.

~snip~

So social conservatives -- for whom Giuliani's support for abortion rights, gun control and gay unions are anathema -- are speaking out. Some say they would use the tools at their disposal to tell voters about Giuliani's social stances.

Viguerie, a direct-mail pioneer, argued it no longer takes millions of mailings to make the case, thanks to talk radio, the Internet and other "below-the-radar" media.

Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, told a conservative radio host that Giuliani's positions are "far outside the mainstream of conservative thought ... Once people focus on this election and the candidates, Giuliani's lead will diminish."

[nopardons]

I didn't think it had and you really didn't understand what that post meant. LOL

[nopardons]

Keep posting that...........nobody reads it anyway. LOL

You are dreaming of the PERFECT candidate to come riding in on a white gorse and save you. Ain't gonna happen.

[nopardons]

Good grief! That was said at a MEMORIAL service!

Bill Clinton PRAISED Nixon, when he died.

[nopardons]

Oh goody.......new SPAM! I was getting rather bored by the old junk. :-)

[BonnieJ]

You have to admit it's more creative than some of the other stuff they post.

[nopardons]

Oh EV, that really was so childish; you must be awfully sleepy. ;^)

[nopardons]

Goodness.........isn't that just so mean and nasty and cruel? /s

[nopardons]

Just a but, but SO covered in tinfoil, as to be a real screamer! LOL

[backtothestreets]

"The present fracture is dangerous and wrong - if this continues, it will create a split that will not be easily healed."

Will create? Draw a little closer and look again. The percentage of Americans that identify as Republicans is down to 27%, the lowest of this decade. In fact, the lowest it has been in over two decades. Americans identifying as Democrats is at 36%, unchanged from 2001 when Republicans took control of Congress and the White House. Americans identifying themselves as independents are presently at 24%.

From 1973 until 1980 when Ronald Reagan became president, people identifying as independent outnumbered people identifying themselves as Republican. We are at the point once again where the Republican Party is on the verge of becoming a quirky political party of little significance.

Reagan did not rebuild the Republican Party with a broad history of liberalism. He appealed to conservatives. Rudy Giuliani is not doing that. If he were, this entire thread would be in support of Rudy. The party needs a candidate that is a healer.

Rudy is a very capable organizer and administrator, but his political and personal history show he lacks the conservative credentials Ronald Reagan had. Rudy's attributes would serve best in taking on the role of Chairman of the Republican National Committee to build the party, not as a candidate for president.

[MadIvan]

None of your business. But I assure you, it won't be someone who supports all of the immoral positions of the Democrat Party, and none of the important provisions of the Reagan platform of the GOP, like Rudy Giuliani.

If you're not going to lay your cards on the table, it's difficult to take anything you say seriously. All we know is what you're against and who you're against, we have no idea what you're for; political nihilism is not useful in this (or any) context. If indeed you're going to support Alan Keyes for President again - I have some bad news. I respect him, but he shot his bolt electorally with his ill-advised move to Illinois.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

I agree. The moderates who keep demanding compromise should start learning some of it themselves. Seriously, the Republican candidate needs to be palatable to the party's base. You may not agree, but none of the leading candidates are very impressive, and some of them are downright polarizing, like Rudy

I don't accept this. There are many instances of the "unrealistic" wing saying they will sit on their hands on Election Day if Rudy is nominated. I have not seen one Rudy supporter say the reverse if Hunter was nominated. The difference is that the people who support Rudy have sufficient overall love of country to realise it's too much of a gamble to let it fall into the hands of the Democrats completely. The unrealistic wing doesn't care if the world explodes so long as that gun grabber Rudy doesn't get into office.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

Rudy Giuliani is not doing that. If he were, this entire thread would be in support of Rudy. The party needs a candidate that is a healer.

Back up a moment - the figures you're describing about the Republican decline have very little to do with Rudy, who is not even a declared candidate yet. Perhaps it has something more to do with the drip feed of poison from the media, and secondly, the Republicans inability to play media hardball when required?

Secondly, if one reads through this thread and others, the way it looks to the occasional voter, the bloke who doesn't take an active interest in politics, is frankly bonkers. That fellow is not going to understand exclamatory little denunciations of Rudy's gun position in the name of Conservatism. He'll think you're holed up in Montana somewhere loaded up on hardtack and cider, ready to shoot the FBI. Conservatism has a great message of individual liberty to offer - a true "Morning in America" message. Unless we tap into that quality of Reagan, into Reagan's spirit, conservatism is going to have a long climb out.

Let's be honest - the bench at the moment is not particularly good: there are not enough Republican governors, many of those that are there are new. There's not enough fresh blood in the Senate. Giuliani looks attractive out of a field that is fairly weak.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

The Court could rule that the child in the womb is a person (which they are, of course) leaving them protected by the words of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bingo. Problem solved.

Again, Rudy personally would not do this. So long as his judicial appointments are in the mould of Roberts and Alito, what do you care?

If people with your point of view made your support conditional on his proposing such people to the Supreme Court, you'd have a political bargaining chip to cash in with him if he won. If the Democrats win, you have nothing. If you demonise him, again, you have no chips to cash.

Ivan

[areafiftyone]

Tell Me about it!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

and we inch closer and closer to prez hillary

Giuliani is in this to help Clinton. He is a tool of Soros...

[Hydroshock]

Maybe they did not hae a conservative to vote for. The same will happen if Rino Rudyis nominated.

[backtothestreets]

"there are not enough Republican governors"

Governors may be the key to this mess. Every President from Lyndon Johnson to GW Bush has either served as Vice-President, or been a governor. Governorships have supplied the majority of US Presidents. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and GW Bush served as governors. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George Bush had their apprenticeship as Vice-Presidents.

With Dick Cheney out of the fray, the Republican Party is in a position not too dissimilar to 1952 when Eisenhower was drafted as the party standard bearer, despite the strong party apparatus of Taft. It is also somewhat similar to 1968 when the dark horse Nixon, coming off two consecutive election defeats, drove through the front runners for the nomination.

Don't be surprised if all the current Republican candidates are set aside for a unity candidate, and don't be surprised if it is a current of former governor. I'm scratching my head at the moment, but I don't recall a single President making the jump from city mayor without some higher office in between.

[areafiftyone]

Well you already know how I feel about that so I'm not going to go into a whole rant about it but If Rudy doesn't win I will still vote for whomever the Republican nominee is.

[MadIvan]

There's a particular problem with the Republican governors at the moment; a high number of them are relatively new to the job. There are exceptions, but this does reduce the field significantly.

What's worse is that a Western governor would be ideal (to try and fight back against the recent losses in the West) - that is not a growth stock for Republicans at the moment.

Regards, Ivan

[azhenfud]

My conscience tells me NO for abortion and anyone who supports it; NO for SSM and those who condone it and want to place it at par with marriage and I believe both stances I've taken to be Biblically principled positions and that leads me to a NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE declaration with regard to RinoRudy.

To cast a vote for JulieAnnie is to go directly against those personal convictions I hold as a Christian and I'm a firm believer the Almighty has placed within the hearts of mankind to know right from wrong and allows us to decide whether we stand firm on His principle AND his ability to lead us in righteousness or do we curl up with a whimper and abandon our beliefs simply for a false perception of "winning". "Choosing the lesser of two evils" is no choice and certainly no "win".

For principles' sake, I will trust the Almighty's promises to guide the obedient over that of politics, any day.

Ask yourself this and answer honestly - if Rudy had nothing behind his name, no "R", would you vote for him. The answer