Posted on 02/12/2007 9:43:49 PM PST by RWR8189
The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes. So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and its erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Rush said on today's program that Rudy has been busy raising money and campaigning for various conservative candidates across the country. Smart thing to do.
" Yea well tell that to Rudy's dead father."
How old was Rudy's father when he died?
Algore.
As if I didn't know. Mel Carnahan won a senate seat as a dead man. At least Democrats know the stakes in politics are life and death, even if you don't.
Giuliani's father died from the disease in 1981, before medical advances increased its detection and curability.
Boy are you cold!
Very smart thing to do. While the amateurs are sitting out here saying that no social conservatives will support Giuliani, socially conservative members of congress will be climbing onboard his campaign because Rudy actively campaigned for them in 2004 and 2006. They recognize that the only way to move their issues forward is to do it through the party, and the only way the party can be the means to promote the issues is if the party wins. Rudy isn't anyone's example of a hard-rock conservative, but at the present he certainly looks like a winner, and to work with him, while still promoting socially conservative positions, is the essence of pragmatic and successful politics.
Not Rudy again!
I'm sick of All-Rudy-All-The-Time at FR.
We can do better than nominate a RINO for president.
We? You have a third party mouse in your pocket?
You are wrong, as usual.
I believe that Rudy had prostate cancer and was forced by this to cease his campaign for the senate seat. See how polite I can be - no invective, no ad hominem, no snarling?
I also have not seen where Rudy supports the Roe v Wade decision.
Interesting excerpt that makes a good point:
Christian conservative leaders will continue to be unhappy with Mr. Giuliani. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently laid into the former mayor for a shifting stance on abortion, saying that a politician who personally believes the practice is wrong but who refuses to ban it is more repugnant than someone who isn't morally troubled by the termination of a pregnancy.
He's right. But there is little the president can do directly about abortion. in weighing contenders for the party's nomination, will right-to-life Republicans be more worried about Mr. Giuliani's personal beliefs, or will they find comfort in the fact that he says he'll appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who may actually overturn Roe v. Wade? If Mr. Giuliani makes a convincing case that he'll also lend his efforts to school choice and other endeavors that will help win the other culture war under way in American politics--the one against an intransient political culture that is unresponsive to the demands of the public--Mr. Perkins could turn out to be mistaken.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com
"Hillary lied to New Yorkers, Obama lied the Illinoisans; Rudy didn't lie to anyone."
Giuliani wouldn't be forced to lie like Clinton. He could say something like "I plan to run for president, and when I do I'll honorably withdraw for the U.S. senate. But right now we have a terrible senator in Hillary Clinton who I must free America from."
So was Mel Carnahan. Tim Johnson isn't exactly functional either.
No matter how harsh the reason, Rudy has forgone the opportunity to kill Hillary as a candidate for good, twice. The reality is that in both cases, he would have lost to her in New York. It saved his skin as a presidential candidate not to run against her, especially in 2006.
What makes you so confident in him as a national candidate, if he can't carry his home state? What makes you so confident in Rudy versus Hillary if he was unwilling to take her on in 2006? To believe that Rudy would carry California over the Beast is deranged.
I knew about it; I just don't buy the excuse when so many lives are at stake.
Witness Mel Carnahan and Tim Johnson. They're not looking so good either but they didn't bow out. Democrats understand the stakes in an election; those who excuse Rudy apparently don't.
I don't believe Rudy can beat Hillary. However, Mit Romney, who is feared by the MSM and democrats alike, can.
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.