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.

[Mia T]

Rudy will appoint strict constructionist judges...--Mia T

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

fyi

[presently no screen name]

At least half these people are flat out nuts

I agree! The positive side is we can see the nuts, while others fall prey to them. Good links in your earlier posts. Thanks.

the forum owner

What do you mean by former owner?

It's like 75% of the freepers had nervous breakdowns.

Fear does that to people. Misery loves company and fear mongers are spreading their venom.

[Peach]

Jim Robinson is the forum owner.

Glad you liked the links!

[presently no screen name]

When did he become former? Who is the present owner? I'm obviously out of the loop here!

[Peach]

Forum owner, not former owner. LOL

[presently no screen name]

LOL!! Reading fear posts is not good for one's health or eyesight. Do you think it's time I called it a night? Say, 'yes'!

[Peach]

Yes! I'm heading to bed too, presently. Sleep tight.

[Peach]

I just realized in using your screen name that the last sentence I typed didn't sound very grammatically correct :-)

[presently no screen name]

LOL! Your sentence is perfect because I don't have a screen name! :)

Good night.

[Spiff]

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

In the very thread that those two posted the info about the selection committee, I debunked their claims with more information from the NYC archives which demonstrated that the MAYOR selects the 19 members of the judicial selection committee. I even had a press release where Giuliani was bragging about who he selected as a judge. If you need me to give you a link, I will. But I destroyed their weak argument that Giuliani's hands were tied. Maybe you should pay better attention.

As for his views on Partial Birth Abortion, he made that pretty clear in the interviews that I excerpted and posted. The Wolf Blitzer question and his response are the most damning to your contention (and his) that Rudy does not support Partial Birth Abortion.

You guys are SO wrong about Rudy and we keep offering proof after proof after proof but nothing seems to get through your thick skulls.

[Spiff]

Whoops - I meant that the George Will question and response was the most damning in that it demonstrated the Giuliani actually SUPPORTS partial birth abortion.

[loboinok]

I never said that Giuliani opposed abortion merely that no one has shown me where he says that Roe v Wade is good law.

The only thing I could find (so far) is a reference to a 2000 interview on-This Week with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, where Giuliani called Roe, "good law".

I haven't yet, had any luck finding a transcript.

[texson66]

That first sentence is absolutely true. I will not vote for another liberal in conservative clothing AGAIN.

[Mia T]

Yes, please post the link.

BTW, if PhiKapMom's research is flawed, then I revert to my original hypothesis, namely, that the appointments were payback of debts acquired sloshing through the NYC political scene for all those years. Let's be real, shall we? Unless a Republican who served for Reagan befriends NY democrats, he ain't gettin' elected to nuttin' in NY.

And I believe I already answered the partial birth abortion point.

That said, I don't think you get it. Giuliani's personal view on abortion--indeed, abortion per se-- is NOT the dispositive issue for me.

My thinking follows.
Note that Giuliani's position on abortion is nowhere to be found in my argument. Indeed, I explicitly deny ¹ that his ideology (other than his strict constructionism) is dispositive:

Check out what the wonderful conservative warrior, R. Emmett Tyrrell has to say.

I hope and pray that Tyrrell is right, that all factions will come to their senses and unite in the end, around Rudy [or, I would add, whichever candidate gets the nod].

The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:

Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who

• as one-half of the 'twofer,' is the proximate cause of 9/11,
  
• is an abuser of women in her own right,
  
• is avidly pro-abortion,
  
• would nominate justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
  
• would resume clinton sale of our nuclear secrets and mineral rights to the enemy,
  
• would sic the IRS and the clinton 'secret police' on all opponents and critics,
  
• would nationalize healthcare,
  
• would decimate the military,
  
• would reinstitute the clinton policy of ignoring of terrorism,
  
• would raise taxes...
  
• even as she and her rapist husband rake in millions in quid pro quos for their slush fund foundation,
  
• would confiscate profits, end capitalism, if she could, etc., etc.

 

 

It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.

Do conservatives really want

• a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia?
  
• marginalization, if not worse, of their religious beliefs?
  
• a return to the amorality, immorality and corruption of the clinton years?
  
• and G-d knows what depth of failure in the War on Terror?

I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.

goto:

STALINIST RISING?
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)

I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all of the others, will actually win.

The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.

We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.

---

P.S. Want to see wholesale abortion for real? Deny the nomination to the only R who would trounce clinton, or alternatively, place your de facto vote for clinton in the general election.

(Get it yet?)

[Spiff]

Yes, please post the link.

link.

[Spiff]

I haven't yet, had any luck finding a transcript.

It's in the mail right now to one of the conservatives on this forum. Be patient. These things take time and cost money.

Meanwhile, Giuliani in 2000 told Tim Russert that his SUPPORT for Partial Birth Abortion was "firm". That's about the most heinous position a Republican could have.

[loboinok]

Great! I wasn't aware of that.

Seems almost a waste of money. It will be good to have the info, since some on these threads seem to be pretty thick when it comes to Giuliani.

I believe that,if Giuliani himself were to tell them to their face, what his positions are, they would argue with him.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

And now a word from the "forum owner":

To make the socially liberal Rudolf Giuliani seem acceptable to Republicans, George Will tolls the death knell for the party of Reagan.

Basically, George Will calls for us to abandon the Christian values of Ronald Reagan and the traditional Judeo-Christian values of our Founding Fathers. But if we abandon our Judeo-Christian moral values then what are we left with? What value system produces the culture of death and decadence, atheism, abortion, gay marriage, the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, human cloning, eugenics, the erosion and destruction of moral society and of our cherished God-given unalienable rights? And what value system fights against such evil?

To accept Rudolf Giuliani as the leader of the Republican party, among many other socialist mores we've fought against for so many years, we are told that we must accept abortion into our hearts. It is an accepted practice in modern America and only a minority of Americans say otherwise. Why resist?

Well, I'm sorry. I do not accept abortion into my heart. And I doubt the majority of Americans will either.

The mass murder of helpless innocent babies in the womb is evil. Period. Poking sharp instruments into the skulls of partially born babies and sucking their brains out is grotesque barbarism so horrific to be beyond the ability of most people to fully comprehend. It's unthinkable evil.

Knowing that the Democrat Party lovingly embraces this evil as part of their platform literally makes me sick to my stomach. Every time I see the face of Hillary, Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, et al, I see the face of pure evil. It's as if I'm looking into the face of Nazism

Rudolf Giuliani does not deliver us from this evil, he delivers us to it.

If the Republican party embraces this evil culture of death platform as the Democrat party does, then I will have to agree... it's time to move on.

The party of Reagan will be dead. The party of Lincoln will be dead. The party of Jeffersonian life and liberty will be dead. The only party defending human life and liberty in America will be dead.

The Republican party becomes the Democrat party and the Democrat party becomes the communist party, the right to life and liberty in America be damned.

Time and evil marches on.

Please pray for America.

Want more? There's more.

[Peach]

I saw it but I can think for myself, thanks. As I recall, pretty terrible things were said by the same people about Bush in 2000. And then of course we were told in November 2006 that the WOT was the most important thing; I don't believe abortion was even mentioned.

And speaking of abortion, it's so strange that Newt's Contract with America never even mentioned it. Given how it's all so many of you can think about, that must be terribly disappointing to you.

[Carry_Okie]

Given how it's all so many of you can think about, that must be terribly disappointing to you.

Actually, I think more about regulatory policy as regards this nation's ability to sustain itself while implementing real care for natural resources. So, you've got it wrong, again. You could have easily found that out but prefer to live in a world of self-reinforcing and unsupported opinion. I just wanted to document that your implication re how "unreasonable" and srill you paint your opposition to be is not shared by the bulk of posters on this forum, much less its owner.