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.
What makes you think I'm thinking about Roe V Wade?
BTW nice have you stopped beating your wife question. Guess the liberal tactics just get easier with practice.
If the pubbie is pro-choice and pro-gun control, and the Dem is pro-choice and pro-gun-control, then pro-life and pro-gun Dems have no reason to leave the party.
Reagan understood this. The Rockefeller Republicans not only refuse to learn the lesson, they despise having to even deal with social conservatives. The right wing is meant to be seen but not heard.
[at the National Abortion Rights Action League’s “Champions of Choice” luncheon]
“As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here,” Giuliani said. He added: “The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.”
http://giulianiblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/giulianis-choices.html
What goes up, must go `round,
Spinning wheel, got to go `round...
Look, Rudy Giuliani's idea of "Strict Constructionism" is RADICALLY different from our definition of strict Constructionism.
Let me break it down:
1.) Rudy calls himself a strict constructionist.
2.) Rudy has praised Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
3.) Rudy expressly believes that the Second Amendment COMPELS us to strictly regulate guns. He has stated that a "well-regulated militia" means strict gun regulation.
4.) He believes that there is a place for junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers in the law.
5.) He believes that Campaign Finance Reform is consistent with the First Amendment.
6.) He believes that Hate Crimes Legislation is consistent with the First Amendment.
7.) He has openly stated that he believes Roe vs. Wade is good law.
8.) He sees a place in law for the Practice of Partial Birth Abortion.
9.) He tried to get an extension as Mayor of NY, and even tried to have the law changed so that he could run again - a very Hugo Chavez-eques view of election laws.
10.) He sued the federal government over strict immigration laws, and acted in direct defiance of those laws to make NY an amnesty city.
11.) His record of appointing judges in NY is that of a far-leftist. He does not have total influence over all of the appointments; but it is entirely dishonest to say that it would have been impossible to get a single Conservative judge, or at least Consensus moderate judge, appointed in his entire tenure.
---His record, world view, legal view, and history all point to a radically different view of "strict constructionism" that most of us have. He cannot be trusted on the judges issue, because he is not credible. On the contrary, all factors considered indicate that we should be TERRIFIED of his judgment on said issue.
He cannot sell us on the "I'll appoint judges who'll protect you from myself" argument because he is not credible on the issue.
I feel that large numbers from both these groups will stay home not only costing the GOP a shot at the White House but in the House and Senate also. I pray that I am wrong as it seems that the media and the "powers that be" want to push Rudy as the candidate so badly.
There's new poll (and thread) showing Hitlery BEATING Rudy 46% to 30% in New York state. And no POTUS was ever elected without winning his home state.
And winning CA - Bwaaahahaha, utterly ridiculous. When faced with a Dem and Dem light, the fruits and nuts will take the real Dem, which we just saw last Nov., every time.
Ergo, with Rudy as candidate it will be a DEM LANDSLIDE. He needs to take his marbles and GO HOME to his Long Island 'estate'.
I'm not Catholic, yet I take the same position. Some day I'll stand before my Creator and give account whether or not I remained true to the convictions he's placed within me. I have that choice. I might not be able to comfortably exercise that decision with a Republican candidate either.
My gawd. He attends a rally to promote a false Constitutional "right" to kill a fetus.
And then turns around and disregards an ENUMERATED CONSTITIONAL RIGHT to BEAR ARMS by takign guns away from long-time permit holders.
DO WE WANT A MAN as president who decides what are constitutional rights and what are not? As opposed to what is actually WRITTEN?
Horsecrap. During Rudy's tenure, abortions in NYC declined at roughly half the rate of decline nationwide.
Maybe the fact that every anti-Rudy comment mentions that first.
I could turn the question around to you:
What makes you think I am a Rudy fan?
I'm not. My point is, has been and will continue to be this - the lesser of two evils is always better than the greater of two evils.
Why is that concept so hard to grasp?
The Rudy crowd thinks IL is winnable. Let them waste their money on IL. All the Dems have to do is run ads in late Oct linking Rudy with George Ryan and its game over in IL. The people of IL consider Republicans to be more corrupt than Democrats. We can thank the crooked moderates who run the state party for that.
The GOP seems determined to close the gap between the two evils.
I agree, I'm having a VERY difficult time finding an issue other than the WOT that I can side on with good ole Skeletor...
When I can't tell the repub from the dem, what does it matter anymore?
Rudy will not make abortion illegal and he won't make gun owndership illegal. this is left to the people in the states.
What he will do is take the war on terror a priority, nominate conservative justices, keep America's military strong.
If he is the nominee I will energetically support him over Hillary Clintoon.
I'm a lapsed Episcopalean. I see abortion as the ultimate human-rights issue. And the langauge used to dehumanize a fetus as dangerous as the langauge used by the Nazis to dehumanize Jews and Slavs and Roma. Once someone is dehumanized, it is easy to rationalize killing them.
As Herman Hesse noted almost 100 years ago, we understand even less nowadays what it means to be human and men are shot wholesale as a result.
I can only imagine how Hesse would view a million legal abortions a year.
maybe - but there will always be two big differences: National Security and Socialism/Capitalism.
If for no other reason, those are reasons enough not to allow a Socialist Traitor in the White House.
Uh, wasn't providing free abortions for the poor part of his "performance" as mayor? How can you square that with your claim to be "pro-life"? And what about the judicial appointments he actually made in NYC? Any conservatives at all among them?
What is happening with Giuliani is surreal. To quote JCEccles in an earlier thread on the topic:
Giuliani's gambit is to assure us he will appoint strict constructionsts who will frustrate his social liberal tendencies and goals. "Elect me and I'll appoint judges who will protect you from me."And his supporters are eating it up.
You make a good point. But remember that George Bush the elder stood for the 2nd amendment and was pro-life, and he gave us David Souter.
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.