Giuliani’ s Social Views Could Be His Downfall

Congressional Quarterly ^ | Feb. 08, 2007 | Rachel Kapochunas

[GulfBreeze]

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has led the field for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination in most polls of GOP voters. His popularity among the party’s mainly conservative base is founded on his image of standing tall and reassuring New Yorkers following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on their city, though some voters also know him for his tough-on-crime persona and efforts to rein in government spending.

But there are aspects of Giuliani’s record; his views, especially on volatile social issues; and his personal past that do not thrill conservative activists. In fact, some are inalterably opposed to him and vow to block his efforts to obtain the Republican nomination.

Though this potential downside has gotten some mention in the media, Giuliani has gone relatively unscathed by political opponents so far. But that is likely because he appeared to be genuinely uncertain about whether to plunge into a Republican nominating process that for decades has favored strongly conservative candidates.

But Giuliani moved closer to becoming an official contender for president this week — he filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission Feb. 5 — and it’s likely that those disinclined to his nomination will start probing his vulnerabilities before long.

The Giuliani campaign has shown, albeit unintentionally, that it at least won’t be caught unaware by any political attacks. A memo detailing Giuliani’s campaign strategy, which was apparently misplaced and leaked to the press, showed that his own campaign questioned whether his positions on social issues would be an insurmountable problem for the former mayor.

These include support for abortion rights, though he says he supports a ban on the procedure known as “partial birth” abortion as long as there is a provision to protect the life of the pregnant woman; general support of gay rights, though he says he is opposed to same-sex marriage; and gun control, also a red flag for many conservatives, but a stand Giuliani describes as fundamental to his successful efforts to sharply reduce his hometown’s crime rate.

The memo also measured the political baggage stemming from the fact that his spouse, Judith Nathan, is his third wife; his very public divorce from his second wife, TV newswoman and actress Donna Hanover, amid allegations that he already was romantically involved with Nathan; and his former business partnership with ex-New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to charges of ethics violations last year.

So Giuliani — whose national stature stemmed largely from the label of “America’s Mayor” that was applied to him after 9/11 — nonetheless faces a significant challenge in winning over religious and other conservatives, who continue to be an essential segment of the electorate in the upcoming Republican primaries and caucuses.

Giuliani doesn’t need every conservative to support his bid, “but he can’t win without some level of support from the party base,” said Dan Schnur, a veteran California Republican political insider who in 2000 was national communications director for Arizona Sen. John McCain’s run for the Republican presidential nomination.

McCain, who according to polls and pundits is one of the other leading candidates for the 2008 nomination, is more conservative on social issues than Giuliani. But he also has a reputation for challenging Republican Party orthodoxy that turns off some conservatives, some of whom haven’t forgiven him yet for challenging George W. Bush’s status as front-runner in the 2000 contest.

Some conservative groups, publications and blogs have already vocalized their apprehension or outright rejection of Giuliani.

Mike Mears, executive director for the conservative Concerned Women for America’s political action committee, listed “high moral character” as the first trait on his list of ideal presidential candidate qualities. Though Mears said the group, with its stated mission to “protect and promote Biblical values,” has yet to completely evaluate the candidates, he did say that Giuliani’s support for abortion rights and gay rights are “opposite” to the beliefs of members of the Concerned Women for America.

Mears stressed that the group is not writing off Giuliani, stating that there is “always room for someone to change.” But he added that the group would require evidence of a change in order to feel comfortable about any candidate with a moderate record on social issues. Mears said the organization will look for ways to work with the eventual party nominee as well as the next president.

Other organizations express less flexibility. “There are some who say, ‘Well, all we need from Giuliani, for instance, is a promise that he’ll put in a judge that will be a good constitutionalist,’ ” said Connie Mackey, senior vice president of Action, the legislative arm of the Family Research Council (FRC). “And we would disagree with that.”

The group describes its purpose is to “educate the general public and cultural leaders about traditional American values and to promote the philosophy of the Founding Fathers concerning the nature of ordered liberty.”

Like Mears, Mackey listed the “sanctity of life” and the preservation of marriage as two major issues on which the group will judge a candidate.

“One’s voting record, one’s statements on issues that are of concern that affect the culture are very important to organizations like the FRC,” said Mackey, who added that there’s still a “long way to go” in the campaign.

Giuliani’s campaign aides contend that rank-and-file conservatives view the candidate much more generously than do some of the activist groups. In a memo authored by strategy director Brent Seaborn and released to the public last week, the campaign pointed to polling numbers they say show Giuliani with “strong approval among white evangelical Christians [76 percent] and self-described conservative Republicans [82 percent].”

The Giuliani campaign announced Thursday that Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller of Michigan’s 10th District endorsed Giuliani and will speak in his favor this weekend at her state’s Republican Party convention in Grand Rapids.

Miller served as chairwoman of President Bush’s 2004 campaign in Michigan and has a mostly conservative voting record that includes voting against federal funding for stem cell research, supporting a proposed amendment to the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion.”

Giuliani’s campaign also argues that one or two issues will not define the contenders. “Republican primary voters will choose their candidate based on a variety of factors and they will ultimately judge the candidate as a whole,” said Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson. “Rudy enjoys strong support across the country within the Republican Party from people who share his views on a variety of issues and appreciate his strong leadership and his record of result.”

Several polls on the Republican nominating contest have shown Giuliani and McCain joined in the top tier of candidates by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who espouses socially conservative views but recently has had to explain the more moderate positions he took in his political debut — an unsuccessful 1994 challenge to Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Schnur said this lineup is ideal for Giuliani. “None of the top-tier Republican candidates are individuals with whom social conservatives are completely comfortable,” said Schnur. “Giuliani doesn’t have to convince these voters to trust him completely, he just has to convince them to trust him more than they trust John McCain or Mitt Romney.”

But for conservative voters who can’t reconcile themselves to any of these three, there are plenty of amenable options in the crowded Republican field. Among those appealing directly to voters on the GOP right are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, California Rep. Duncan Hunter and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.

For now, said Schnur, Giuliani’s celebrity status as the mayor who lead New York City through the post-9/11 recovery efforts guarantees him prominent media coverage and more visibility than the lower-tier candidates.

Schnur added that the presence of one additional candid thing scares Republican primary voters more than the prospect of President Hillary [Rodham] Clinton,” said Schnur. “All three of the top-tier [Republican] candidates can use that fear as a way to convince more conservative voters that they’re palatable because they can beat her.”

[RockinRight]

Agreed on Newt.

[BurtSB]

so hillary will win the south ?
she is hated in the south !

[RockinRight]

There are more issues than abortion. And more reasons than abortion to not like Rudy.

But, let me ask a question. Actually several.

Is Bush Pro-life? Yes, I would think he's the most pro-life president we've ever had.

Has Bush outlawed abortion? Nope.

Therefore, does the President really matter that much on the issue?

Again, I'm not a Rudy supporter as my posts show, but let's not be unrealistic on that one issue.

[RockinRight]

A New York gun grabber will lose almost all of the South.

Against Hillary? Pulleeeze. BILL Clinton could probably beat Rudy in a few southern states, like Arkansas and Louisiana. Hillary cannot.

[GulfBreeze]

I understand sitetest. My comment in 33 applies though.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781879/posts?page=33#33

[BurtSB]

Again, I live in the real world. I am not real cray about any of them .But look at the crazies in change of the house and senate . That was product of
repub throwing a tandrum and look what we have now !
Hunter is a unknown and the media we have will never
report a positive thing about him period.
He is another Bob Dole who will be ignored while Hillary will be peddled non stop . Rudy will has name recognition and will, be considered a decent option to Clinton plus he will win the most of the northeast and midwest .

[RockinRight]

Here's how I look at it.

If Rudy's the nominee, and running vs. Hillary:

Hillary will be disastorous on all counts. Rudy on some counts, but good or acceptable on others.

Either way, we're going to be living life here in America, and a Rudy Presidency, at the very least, will be tougher on terrorists and easier on my wallet than a Hillary presidency.

So, I'd vote for Giuliani if it came down to it.

[GulfBreeze]

Burt,

You are 180degrees turned around and upside down.

Bob Dole was moderate and the base went to sleep. Giuliani is a moderate at best and the base will fall asleep.

Duncan Hunter will have the Social Conservatives out in droves.

No matter WHO the GOP nominee is he WILL be known.

[GulfBreeze]

I agree. RR

[ElPatriota]

BEWARE!... Social-conservatives, Christian conservatives or moral-conservatives of ANY KIND..

*** WE NEED TO UNITE ***

WHO? I don't know, but here we are, in the middle of the Internet revolution, and yet, I feel as if someone, somewhere, is pulling the strings to elect a LEFTY 'Republican! (I still don't get used to the label /s).

I believe Guliani's CONSULTANTS team tactic is simply to DIVIDE the Republicans. Attract as many Lefty Republicans by painting Mr. RG as the CHAMPION OF NATIONAL SECURITY!... Just because, yes, He cleaned up N.Y. and acted with leadership on 9/11... Great as those things are, does not make him the Republican Presidential candidate by default...HARDLY!

And I should say, if he were a social-conservative (as DUNCAN is) THEN, I would be pulling hard for him!...But as it is NO WAY IN HELL I WILL VOTE FOR HIM!... Because if he gets elected, well, social-conservatives LOSE AND the LEFT WINS... That simple. All true social, Christian or Moral conservatives should above all, DENY out vote to the Left... And Rudy is the LEFT on social issues, and those are our issues.

[GulfBreeze]

I disagree RR

[RockinRight]

Well, let me clarify - the only way right now that the President has much effect on abortion is through the court system.

If Giuliani actually meant what he said about judges on Hannity the other night...then we might actually be OK if he became President.

[pissant]

Hunter is the farthest thing from a Bob Dole as we can get. Bob Dole was a go along to get along guy, who had disdain for the right wing of the party. Duncan is just the opposite, and he is not prone to sticking his foot in his mouth. He will run strong. And if he proves himself in the primaries he will earn what he gets. Its a year until the first primaries. The soul of the GOP is up in the air. Do we veer left with the media annointed big names, or do we push the GOP back towards Reaganism.

That is the choice in front of us now.

Rudy had a chance to nuance his gun grabbing past to assure conservatives he would not support more gun control. Hannity threw him a soft ball and he whiffed badly. So do not present Rudy to me as the best hope. He isn't.

[KDD]

so hillary will win the south?

By default perhaps...Bill Clinton won Fl., LA., Ark., Tenn., Ky., MO, and Georgia in his runs. He won those States because of the "neither" vote.

[RockinRight]

Look at post 47. Tell me what you think.

[Melas]

My preference/bias is well known, I like Duncan Hunter. Name ID is only a problem in the rimary.

Actually, I don't think name recognition is going to be Hunter's problem. Primaries are expensive, and funding is going to be Hunter's problem. Hunter's anti-trade views are going to cut him off from business interests and their checkbooks.

[GulfBreeze]

Yea,
The problem is when Giuliani say judges "like Roberts" does he envision the same thing I do?

I really doubt it. However, it will have to be better than what Hillary would appoint (ala Ginsberg).

[sitetest]

Dear RockinRight,

"There are more issues than abortion."

That's true. I also would prefer not to vote for someone who is for the homosexual agenda.

But if that were his only flaw, I might swallow hard and vote for him.

I also am reluctant to vote for someone who isn't pro-Second Amendment.

But if that were the only point of disagreement with the candidate, I'd probably vote for him.

I'm also unhappy with candidates who back laws like McCain-Feingold, vitiating large sections of the First Amendment.

But if I generally agreed with a candidate on most other issues, I'd take my lumps and vote for him.

I'm really concerned about candidates who think so little of our rights to property that they propose to use civil forfeiture laws to take away the cars of folks ACQUITTED of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Again, though, if this were the only point of disagreement, I'd live with it.

I really am a pragmatist.

That Mr. Giuliani is on the wrong side of all these issues certainly reinforces my decision that I will not vote for him. Period.

However, abortion is a special issue. Anyone who says that there is a constitional RIGHT for one class of human beings (pregnant mothers) to unilaterally obtain the death of another class of entirely innocent human beings (unborn or only partly-born human beings) does not have enough comprehension about human rights to get my vote for President of the United States of America.

"Therefore, does the President really matter that much on the issue?"

Even though the president's power on this issue is highly attenuated, the President of the United States is the elected officer in the United States with a unique capacity to have an effect on the issue.

I will not vote for someone for president who believes that there is a constitutional "right" to abortion.

There are positions on other issues that would prevent me from voting for someone for president. I call them my "veto issues."

Someone who believes that Jews do not deserve the full protection of law, including the full protection of their right to life, would be unacceptable to me. Or someone who believed that about blacks. Or whites. Or any other class of human beings.

Or a candidate that believed that one could justify one class of persons having a right to own other persons of another class.

Or someone who thinks that perhaps it may be acceptable to kill those who are very tiny, and from whom we could take their "spare parts," or who are very old, very sick, terminally ill, extremely handicapped, or highly-dependent.

Or any candidate who seems similarly and deeply confused about the most basic, most fundamental human rights.

We DO live in a republic, or at least so we wish to believe. Republics cannot survive as just societies if, at their foundations, they are not based upon recognition of and respect for fundamental human rights. Without the recognition of pre-existing human rights, and the respect for them, any form of democracy, whether direct, indirect, representative, republican, federal, confederal, or unitary, will eventually degenerate into mobocracy.

It may happen in the United States whether I vote against anti-human rights candidates or not.

But I'm not going to aid and abet that possibile outcome.


sitetest

[RockinRight]

No, Clinton won because he's a "Southern" Democrat. Hillary isn't Southern.

[GulfBreeze]

We've argued this before and you are still as wron as you were then. ;-P

But you've got every right in the world to be wrong.

Hunter is not anti-free trade. He is anti "bend over and let the Chinese fill up the old..." well you get my drift.