Culture Warrior (Don't write off Giuliani's appeal to social conservatives)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Februrary 13, 2007 | BRENDAN MINITER

[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.

[presently no screen name]

This is faulty logic. I don't condone it a bit; I acknowledge that it is effective. I also understand that putting my commitments ahead of my life is as powerful a statement as a human can make, one that is essential to real leadership. If you can't discern that distinction, that's too bad for you.

I can discern it all right - and it's too bad for you that you EXPECT/DEMAND that Rudy should follow the corrupt lead of what "you' think is effective. You never win in the end with lies - any person of character knows that, Rudy knows it, you don't. Your choice to follow corrupt leadership is how you bow to evil.

Fear? Horse feces. I am simply acknowledging reality not living in denial, like you.

Your posts show your reality - it's all about fear and how I better get it together or they will roll over me and my family!! YOU live in fear and try your hardest to pass it along to others. It may work on some but not me for it reeks of cowardliness. I fly with eagles not wimps.

So apparently in your opinion, it's evil to put one's commitments ahead of one's own life. I see. Well, we don't share those values. You think it's just fine to cop out because of personal difficulty. I don't, not when the stakes involve the lives of others.

Since our views are opposite - you cannot assume my opinion nor can you understand what I said. If you don't know what evil is - it's a good starting point for you to find out what it is. Rudy didn't cop out - he made a correct decision with his priorities in order. For some reason, you can't handle the fact that Rudy used good common sense in his decision and he didn't ask you what "you want'. You appear quite the controlling person. I'm not here to nurse your wounds, so have a good night.

[EternalVigilance]

I find your rhetoric offensive, frankly.

Giuliani is a radical anti-constitutionalist, pro-abortion politician. Doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on him, he's still a liberal pig.

[EternalVigilance]

Giuliani does not support partial birth abortion.

A flat out lie. Why am I not surprised?

[presently no screen name]

LOL! No need to ask again. Hunter did great! Thanks.

[Spiff]

If anyone is playing with the truth, it is you. Giuliani does not support partial birth abortion. He simply wants it to include the life-of-the-mother exception, which is the ethically correct position.

In 2000, after the Republican-controlled Congress passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban which included an exception for the life of the mother Giuliani still opposed it and defended Bill Clinton for vetoing it. He also opposed the New York State Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He is lying to you. He's supported Partial Birth Abortion all along:

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the provision for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[presently no screen name]

Thanks, Mia!

[Tarpon]

Unless Rudy changes his tune on the second amendment, not for me. The second amendment has been my best judge on whether a person supports individual freedom or is just another closet liberal. Bush just squeaked by, but not gonna do that again. I want the real McCoy.

[Peach]

You're right with regard to the weenie men who go running to mommy crying "Mommy, mommy, help. They're supporting a Republican I don't like."

I've never seen anything like it before. Ever.

When I post those links, I'm posting for the lurkers knowing full well that the crybabies minds are made up.

[Carry_Okie]

I can discern it all right - and it's too bad for you that you EXPECT/DEMAND that Rudy should follow the corrupt lead of what "you' think is effective.

What I say is effective? LOL, the Democrats are in control of the Senate. That's all the evidence of effectiveness any logical person would need.

You never win in the end with lies -

On that we agree. What "lies" are at issue here, other than the claim that Rudy Giulaiani is a conservative (a claim that is demonstrably false)?

Your choice to follow corrupt leadership is how you bow to evil.

In what respect would Rudy, in choosing to allow his people to run his campaign while he took treatment, be making a corrupt choice? He would be asking the people of New York to bet on the risk that he would recover, which looks to me like a very reasonable risk seeing as he appears to be in perfect health and has been for the bulk of the term he chose to forgo.

Your posts show your reality - it's all about fear and how I better get it together or they will roll over me and my family!!

I'm merely imparting historical documented facts, so I suggest you see a shrink. A good shrink can tell you about "projection." Given that you are such a courageous fellow, I fully expect you to never once in the past or future, posit the specter of a Hillary presidency, else your words are false.

Since our views are opposite

False premise. Opposite of what? With what parts of the Republican Party Platform do you disagree? I concur with nearly all of it, so if you deem that we are opposites, that makes you a leftist, by your own pathetic misuse of logic. I suggest a course in rhetoric.

For some reason, you can't handle the fact that Rudy used good common sense in his decision and he didn't ask you what "you want'.

This is pure fantasy on your part.

You appear quite the controlling person. I'm not here to nurse your wounds, so have a good night.

Nighty night shrieking crybaby.

[Mia T]

trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it

Or, alternatively, he changed his position--'evolved'--in the intervening years.
Seems more politicians than not flip on abortion--in both directions (didn't b. clinton and gore go the other way?)--when going from a local to a national run.

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges and will be a strong wartime leader. That will protect ALL our babies and ALL our liberties.

[Spiff]

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges

Not according to his own record on appointing judges. He can SAY whatever he wants now, but he's just trying to sell himself to gullible Republicans. A tiger does not change his stripes and he vowed multiple times in 2000 that he was firm in his pro-abortion - even partial birth aborton - convictions.

[My2Cents]

Minds?

:-)

[EternalVigilance]

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges and will be a strong wartime leader. That will protect ALL our babies and ALL our liberties.

Pure propaganda with no basis in reality or fact.

[EternalVigilance]

You live in a fantasy world.

[Peach]

hehehe.

At least half these people are flat out nuts. I'm stunned that the forum owner doesn't seem to mind just how FR is being portrayed to the media these days.

There's a thread now that I just posted a comment on that is the ugliest I've ever seen on FR. It's like 75% of the freepers had nervous breakdowns.

[Carry_Okie]

Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges...

Show me something in his record indicating that this is likely. All I've seen is a campaign promise that is easily twisted.

[My2Cents]

Partial birth abortion ban...Interesting that you keep bringing this up. Because of you "holier-than-thou"-type conservatives who griped about Republicans for the past two years, threatened to sit out the midterm elections, vote for the Vegetarian Party or some other political suicide cult because the GOP didn't live up to 100% of your bent perspectives, the GOP lost the elections in November, and the chances of this congress ever passing another partial birth abortion ban bill are worse than slim and none. That's what your hardnosed departures from realism produce.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The GOP lost because they drifted away from the base that got them in in 1994.

[Mia T]

The bottom line is this: Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges--Mia T

Not according to his own record on appointing judges. He can SAY whatever he wants now, but he's just trying to sell himself to gullible Republicans. A tiger does not change his stripes and he vowed multiple times in 2000 that he was... pro-abortion....--Spiff

He has not changed his position. He says he is personally against abortion but that he believes it is the woman's decision. But his personal position is not relevant. What is relevant is his position on the constitutional issue of judges legislating from the bench. And there he is on the side of the Constitution, our liberties and all babies.

If you had done your homework, (thank you PhiKapMom, nopardons) you would have discovered that when Giuliani appointed judges in New York City, his hands were tied.

Since 1978, merit selection has been used to select judges of New York City's criminal and family courts and to fill mid-term vacancies on the city's civil court.

Established by executive order, the mayor's advisory committee on the judiciary evaluates applicants and nominates highly qualified candidates. The mayor may not appoint a judge who has not been nominated by the committee. All based on merit selection and all come from an advisory committee which means in liberal NY the chances of finding a conservative judge based on merit would be nil to non-existent.

Conversely, consider Giuliani's statement made at a recent visit with the South Carolina GOP Executive Committee when an audience member pressed him for his position on judges:

'On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible.'

[Carry_Okie]

Partial birth abortion ban...Interesting that you keep bringing this up.

Actually, he didn't bring up the topic. ReaganMan did on post 30, loboinok repeated it in post 60, EternalVigilance did again in post 305, and MiaT made the false assertion that Rudy opposed it. Spiff merely provided irrefutable evidence that Rudy supports partial birth abortion, and then conveniently changes his position to appeal to conservatives. Apparently you don't like irrefutable evidence, especially when it shows that your assertions Rudy is some sort of conservative are false.

This "change" in Rudy's position also shows what his promises are worth re appointing "strict constructionist judges," which is quite apparently not worth much.

Because of you "holier-than-thou"-type conservatives who griped about Republicans for the past two years, threatened to sit out the midterm elections, vote for the Vegetarian Party or some other political suicide cult because the GOP didn't live up to 100% of your bent perspectives,

You know, I'm really tired of this bogus "100%" strawman you "moderates" keep flogging. Most folks here are mature enough to make a choice among alternatives however poor, but in a primary, when "not 100%" is more like 20% and we've got a 90% alternative, well, that 20% Giuliani is just not good enough.

It must be tough when you can't prove that Rudy's any better than that, but it's just how it is.