Posted on 02/15/2007 7:10:08 AM PST by TitansAFC
Giuliani’s Electoral Downside The social issues aren’t just a primary problem.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Rudy Giuliani doesn’t seem to have any tepid supporters on the Right. His fans are dogged in explaining his virtues to their skeptical peers. Steven Malanga recently wrote an essay for the City Journal’s website making the case for Giuliani as a conservative exemplar. He runs through an impressive list of the mayor’s conservative accomplishments. He adds this closing thought: “And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.”
At one point, the thought behind Malanga’s comment was the conventional wisdom. Socially-conservative views, notably opposition to abortion, were required to get the Republican nomination in presidential and many other races, but hurt the candidate in the general election.
The generalization never had much evidence to support it. It was true that opposition to abortion bought candidates worse news coverage, and true as well that some measures of public opinion found the public to support legal abortion. But other measures of public opinion, at least as good, found the public to be mildly pro-life. Among voters who considered abortion a top issue, meanwhile, pro-lifers clearly predominated.
In recent years, the conventional wisdom has changed. In the 2004 election, it was widely recognized that abortion was a bigger political problem for pro-choice Democrats than pro-life Republicans. John Kerry agonized over the issue; at one point his campaign disinvited Kate Michelman, who had long headed the abortion lobby NARAL, from a rally. The crucial swing voters in that election were not the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people who are disproportionately found among the college-educated. Rather, they were social conservatives, often Catholics, who were receptive to Democratic appeals on economic issues. Those voters were the great prize the campaigns sought in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa.
How will those voters react if the Republicans nominate Rudolph Giuliani for president?
Some of them — especially the ones who had overcome ancestral Democratic loyalties because of the social issues — would probably go back to voting on economic issues, and vote for, say, Hillary Clinton.
Of course, it is possible that Giuliani would more than make up for these losses by bringing in other voters. Maybe the map of the 2008 election would look different from that of the Bush elections, with such states as California and New Jersey in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years. So many of Giuliani’s supporters dream. Polls taken right now find him to be the Republicans’ strongest candidate. A USA Today/Gallup poll has him beating Sen. Clinton by two points, while she beats McCain by three. (The Quinnipiac poll recently found similar results in Florida.)
But these polls are not terribly good at predicting election results. In Sept. 1999, a Washington Post/ABC poll found Gov. George W. Bush with a 19-point lead over Vice President Al Gore. Fourteen months later, Gore won more votes than Bush. One thing polls can’t capture is how the dynamics of a campaign change public opinion.
Social and national-security issues have tended to help Republican campaigns in recent years, and economic ones to help Democratic ones. The mix of advantages will look different in a race that pits Giuliani against any conceivable Democrat. On some social issues — crime, welfare, and affirmative action, for example — Giuliani takes the popular position; but these issues have declined in political importance. He will, however, be unable to take advantage of other social issues that have helped Republicans and increased in importance. National security, notwithstanding Giuliani’s reputation, is at least as likely to be a drag on the Republican ticket as an aid to it. (I’m less persuaded than Giuliani’s fans that his reputation for toughness, competence, and taking Islamist terrorism seriously will help him against the Democrats as much as they think it will, but that’s another piece.) And on issues such as health care and trade, he will have the same uphill climb that other Republicans do.
Giuliani, like Obama, is an exciting candidate. The safe bet, however, is that even with superstar nominees each party is going to go into 2008 with a floor around 46 percent and a ceiling around 54 percent. For either party to go into such a race by throwing away one of its advantages (and betting on stardom) would be risky.
None of this is to say that Giuliani is unelectable. Perhaps he would be the Republican party’s strongest nominee. But if so, it won’t be because he’s a social liberal.
— Ramesh Ponnuru is an NR senior editor and author of The Party of Death.
F-You gun owners and Pro-Lifers, so says Steven Malanga - we don't need you anyway, and all you've done is hurt us.
That pretty much sums up the Rudy campaign, doesn't it?
Economic issues??? Hillary??? You mean the taketaketaketaketaketaketaketaketake for the common good economy?
Not dogged enough, I'd say. Factoids keep creeping into the discussion.
Social conservatives are going to vote for Hitlery? He must be out of his mind
This just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would someone who is Pro-Life, and whose main issue is abortion, vote for Hillary Clinton, or ANY pro-choice candidate?
I would be more likely to believe that they wouldn't vote at all.
Pro-Abortion.
Anti-gun.
Pro-Illegal immigration.
Anti-fence.
Pro-Kyoto treaty idiocy.
Anti-capitalist.
Pro-Shwartzinager's medical care.
And we're gonna VOTE for this guy?
Hello to a 3rd party Ross Pee-rot type, all the unattached female voters go for Hillary, and the GOP's toast!
One of the main issues for the conservatives is judges' appointment. Somehow, the Republicans didn't think this important that they didn't run on the issue last year. Rudy is aware of this, so one of the first thing he did was describing his ideal judges: the conservative ones.
As I've said on these threads before, nominating RG is playing with fire. It might work, but if it doesn't, it's going to blow up in your face so bad that you'll land on the moon.
I wish more people at FR would take note of that fact. It does not matter much is Rudy's personal beliefs are pro or anti gun rights or pro or anti abortion rights if he appoints conservative judges. Unlimited abortions will continue as long as Roe v Wade has not been over-ruled. Our second amendment rights will be safe unless we end up with another Warren court.
I'm not on the Rudy bandwagon, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over a dem.
The one thing that has kept many Catholics voting GOP in spite of this are Life issues (the idea to many that it is a "sin" to vote for Pro-Choice candidates), and family issues.
I'm a Catholic and as far as I'm concerned it is a serious sin to vote for pro abortion candidates...even if both candidates are pro-abortion. Rudy will never get my vote.
But Riudy is opposed to everything conservative judges stand for...why in the world would you believe that he'd appoint conservatives to the federal courts? He thinks Roe V Wade is good and settled law, he thinks the 2nd Amendment requires gun control, he has said publically that he admires Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he has marched arm in arm with drag queens in gay right s parades and has issued proclamations in support of Roe V Wade. There's simply no way I could ever believe that he'd appoint judges I'd find acceptable.
He won me over quickly. THE PROOF IS IN THE PERFORMANCE.
He turned around New York City by governing as a limited-government conservative; a city that liberal politicians had told us for decades was ungovernable and and unmanageable.
I don't agree with all his positions and I certainly don't approve of his personal choices. But this is survival.
I wrote a blog today about the worldwide fascist network. Rudy understands this concept better than any politician in America. When Chris Matthews asks, smirkingly: "Was Saddam responsible for 9-11?" he's trying to win a silly debate point. When Rudy speaks about the war against the Jihadists he is trying to convince all who will listen that this is a worldwide struggle against a wide variety of ignorant and brutal savages.
Read my blog at: http://give-n-go.blogspot.com
He does not believe that Roe v. Wade is good law and has said so on numerous occasions.
He's only saying so now. Did you read the proclamation he issued on the 25th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision?
What President has EVER been able to overturn Roe V Wade? Reagan? Bush? Bush? Anyone????
You would actually put the fate of this nation in the hands of those who would see us destroyed because of an issue that the President can do nothing about anyway?
What sense does that make?
Archives of the Mayor's Press Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: January 22, 1998
Release #034-98
Contact: Colleen Roche/Brenda Pérez (212) 788-2958
MAYOR GIULIANI COMMEMORATES THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROE V. WADE SUPREME COURT DECISION
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani today commemorated the 25th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. At a press conference at City Hall, the Mayor was joined by Kelli Conlin, Executive Director of the New York State Affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL/NY); Irwin Schneiderman, NARAL Foundation Board Chair; Barbara Schack, NARAL/NY Board Chair; State Senator Roy M. Goodman, Council Member Andrew Eristoff; and Assemblyman John Ravitz.
"Twenty five years after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, its impact is as significant as ever," Mayor Giuliani said. "This decision has precluded government from interfering with a woman’s Constitutional rights. "I take this opportunity to restate the commitment of the Administration to protect women’s right to seek reproductive health advice and services if that is their choice," the Mayor concluded.
Ms. Conlin said, "The 25th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade is an important time to remember the values that define the right to choose, and to applaud New York’s important role in leading the nation in regard to reproductive health. The Roe decision transformed abortion from a criminal act to a legal medical procedure, allowing doctors to provide this important medical service to women, without fear of criminal prosecution. Women were finally spared the humiliation of back alleys, and the fear of death due to unsafe, unsanitary procedures.
Ms. Conlin continued, "New York City has renewed its commitment to reproductive health care for women consistently, most profoundly in 1994 with the enactment of the Clinic Protection Act, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of violence and harassment of women entering health facilities."
With more than 50,000 members, NARAL/NY works in the political arena to protect women’s access to safe reproductive health services, and to expand the reproductive rights available to women.
www.ci.nyc.ny.us
32 posted on 02/14/2007 12:34:06 PM EST by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't tell me that he HAD to do this because he was mayor of a large liberal city but as President he'll act otherwise. I don;t buy it. As a presidential candidate he'll act otherwise but as President he'll be the same liberal he's always been!
To see if the mayor can win the nomination without:
*The Religious Right--which includes the Pro-Life and Pro-Family groups
*The millions of 2nd Amendment defenders
Pulling this off would be the greatest political miracle in my lifetime...
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.