Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giuliani Has No Real Chance With GOP Voters . . . or Does He?
The Washington Post ^ | March 4, 2007 | Dan Balz

Posted on 03/04/2007 2:13:52 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

The 2008 presidential campaign is just weeks old, but already an article of faith within the Republican Party -- the belief that no politician who favors abortion rights and gay rights can win the GOP nomination -- is being challenged by the candidacy of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

...."This is the first Republican presidential primary since Sept. 11," said Ed Gillespie, ... "Rudy Giuliani is a candidate who can clearly test the proposition that a Republican who is more moderate on social issues can capture the nomination. He's testing it now."

....Whit Ayres, a Georgia-based Republican pollster, said he has been struck by the number of conservatives he has encountered who disagree with Giuliani on abortion or gay rights but are still attracted to him as a possible Republican nominee. ....

"It truly is the question in Republican presidential politics at the moment," Ayres said. "There are a lot of people with a more traditional view who think that his leading in the polls is just a mirage and that he has no real chance. I don't believe that. I think there's more to this than simply name ID. "

...A veteran Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly assess the situation, said he is among those who long believed that a Republican with Giuliani's profile would have no chance. He still believes the former mayor faces significant obstacles but said the odds of Giuliani winning the nomination are not as remote as they once seemed.

He gave three reasons: the absence of a strong, traditional conservative in the GOP field; continuing antipathy among many social and religious conservatives toward McCain; and the prospect of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) becoming the next president.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: duncanhunter; election; giuliani; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-300 next last
To: Jim Robinson

Ditto.


161 posted on 03/04/2007 8:53:13 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; Jim Robinson

Dear MadIvan,

"Getting rid of abortion is going to require having appropriate justices in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, a promise which Rudy has made,..."

Sorry, but that's a lie, MadIvan.

Mr. Giuliani didn't promise justices who would overturn Roe.

He promised "strict constructionists."

In that he believes that abortion is a woman's constitutional right, and that Roe was rightly decided, the most reasonable interpretation of "strict constructionist" for Mr. Giuliani is "someone who would uphold Roe."

If Mr. Giuliani wishes to explicitly state the contrary, he is welcome to do so.

Otherwise, a vote for Mr. Giuliani is a vote to uphold Roe.


sitetest


162 posted on 03/04/2007 8:56:29 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV; Steel Wolf
...We can disagree during the nomination process..(but).. once this process is done and a candidate selected .. I pray all of us can get behind him no matter who it turns out to be...

Your prayer will be answered by 99% of the Republican party. Don't be misled by all the 1%'ers posting at FR.

163 posted on 03/04/2007 9:08:02 AM PST by MrNatural ("...You want the truth!?...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Getting rid of abortion is going to require having appropriate justices in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade

Overturning Roe v. Wade is necessary, but it will not stop a single abortion.

"Getting rid of abortion" will require legislation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the territories - and without a massive and unprecedented change in public opinion, it will never happen.

164 posted on 03/04/2007 9:11:23 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Reagan Man; narses; Condor51; Jim Robinson; Spiff; jla
A LOOK AT RUDY'S RADICAL PRO-ABORT PAST IS A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE

Rudy is not just "pro-abortion." Rudy is joined at the hip to the most radical pro-abortion elements---NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the abortion-on-demand-with-the-govt-picking-up-the-tab crowd.

Giuliani used his Mayoral term to advance abortion EVEN THOUGH, AS MAYOR, HE HAD NO LEGISLATIVE OR OFFICIAL MANDATE TO DO DO SO.

From the FEC database: 04/24/1999 Donations
NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC

NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999. NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton. NARAL gave $1000---4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.

Clearly, NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, NARAL Honored Mayor Rudy for his efforts---he was the honored guest speaker and made The Opening Remarks at NARAL's "Champions of Choice" Luncheon. He has also publicly praised eugenecist Margaret Sanger (PP founder)

In a CNN interview, Giuliani indicated he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." Giuliani also indicated he would have upheld President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. Mayor Rudy told Phil Donahue he'd give his daughter the money for an abortion (to get rid of his own grandchild).

==================================================

The pro-abort savages have commenced the killing of the innocent----who knows where it will end, with Rudy at the levers of government, and NARAL whispering in his ear?

It's worthwhile to note that pro-lifers are merely treating Rudy the way he's treated unborn children-------as a disposable nuisance.

165 posted on 03/04/2007 9:20:21 AM PST by Liz (Hunter: For some candidates, a conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it is my hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Dear Jim Noble,

"Overturning Roe v. Wade is necessary, but it will not stop a single abortion."

Well, that's probably not quite right (a number of states have very restrictive abortion laws that would take effect should Roe be overturned), but you make a good point! Overturning Roe is really the beginning of the battle, not the end.

However, we can't begin until we overturn Roe.

"...it will never happen."

I'm not such a pessimist. I'm sorry for you that you are.


sitetest


166 posted on 03/04/2007 9:26:30 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
In that he believes that abortion is a woman's constitutional right, and that Roe was rightly decided, the most reasonable interpretation of "strict constructionist" for Mr. Giuliani is "someone who would uphold Roe."

He said would appoint judges in the mould of Scalia and Alito, who do not believe in the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade. Ergo, he would appoint appropriate justices. Your suspicion of his motives is one thing - calling him a liar is quite another.

Ivan

167 posted on 03/04/2007 9:36:44 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: narses
As your entire post has no links, doesn't present any of the information in context, I can only take it as one long treatise full of innuendo.

There are people who are determined to read the worst into whatever Rudy does. Unfortunately, you have made yourself one of that number. If indeed he is the nominee, you're going to have quite a journey to walk that back.

Ivan

168 posted on 03/04/2007 9:38:31 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

"I can only take it as one long treatise full of innuendo."

If you choose. Ignoring FACTS is not a good thing. But your choice.

BTW, was Rudy a liar when he took NARAL money and spoke in praise of their "great work" or when he lied about judges?


169 posted on 03/04/2007 9:42:25 AM PST by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: narses
What you've posted is a series of randomly selected quotes. If I had recordings of your every public utterance, I could assemble them in such a way to make you look like a flaming Communist and call you all sorts of things based upon it. But as that is the type of tactics worthy of Michael Moore, I wouldn't do so.

Ivan

170 posted on 03/04/2007 9:43:51 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat
The "electorate" is not a natural phenomenon, composed of inanimate non-sentient objects, and totally subject to forces of which they are unaware. It is living, conscious human beings, who THINK about things, however flawed such thinking may be. You even alluded to this "thinking" in your own post, yet you persist in treating them as non-sentient objects such as tides and winds.

Non-sentient may be a bit strong, but I think I could make a decent case that at least half of the electorate is only semi-sentient. ;-)

As to the natural phenomenon comparison, I use it because group dynamics can't be explained and understood by focusing on a micro scale. In other words, I don't need to analyze every drop of falling water to know how hard it's raining. Large numbers form patterns, and from patterns, you can discern trends. This is the basis of analysis, and as a general rule, it's a handy tool.

I would agree that the current attitudes you describe and ascribe to the electorate are pretty much correct, but they didn't arrive at those attitudes through random or cyclical natural events, they were persuaded into them, and perhaps could be persuaded otherwise.

To add to your point, they were persuaded by events, and events could persuade them otherwise. For instance, Iraq basically sunk the Bush Administration, and the current iteration of the GOP. Iraq is not a cyclical natural event, it's a manmade one, but it served to persuade and polarize a lot of people. Victory and peace in Iraq will be as good for the GOP as continued violence will be bad. "Persuasion" on Iraq, if you mean MSM spin, will only rub salt in the wound; it won't create it.

What leaders do ultimately means a lot more to voters than what pundits spin. Closing the border, lowering taxes, prosecuting the GWOT, all these things are the real major chess pieces that, properly moved, will create trends in public opinion that will win the game for us. Poorly moved, it will create trends and moods that will defeat us.

It's those trends and moods I see now that I've been basing my analysis off of. Perhaps not so enigmatic as an unthinking weather pattern, but I still find the analogy to be pretty similar.

Both sides need to chill out. If you've made your choice, fine. Post your argument and reasoning, respectfully, then back-off and allow others to do the same. If they don't respond respectfully, ignore them. Don't dive into the mud with them. Don't respond to intimidation, and don't be guilty of it yourself.

I think this is an excellent point. Aside from the fact that this mudslinging makes for poor debate, it makes us on the right look like panicking fools. This internal spasming will make the Democrats see us as divided, and the Republicans see their own support base as unreliable.

I really don't care for Rudy, except as a vehicle to keep taxes low, the GWOT running smoothly, and the Democrats out of office. (I'd be 10x happier with him if he had a better stance on gun control, which is the universal glue that holds the GOP together). Happy or not, a better leader may not be in the cards. Given the way President Bush is currently steering the country, the country is going to steer away from another President Bush. (That meaning, someone that's percieved to be a "my way or the highway" visionary leader with a prominent religious vibe). I'm certainly open to suggestions. I just think that we need to admit to ourselves that the situation is bad, thanks to the current leadership, and we're not really in a position to win without compromising.

171 posted on 03/04/2007 9:50:36 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Dear MadIvan,

"He said would appoint judges in the mould of Scalia and Alito, who do not believe in the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade. Ergo, he would appoint appropriate justices. Your suspicion of his motives is one thing - calling him a liar is quite another."

I wasn't calling Mr. Giuliani a liar.

He's spoken well of Mr. Scalia and others, but also of Mrs. Ginsburg.

I see what is the range of acceptable nominees to him, and the range is unacceptably broad for me. Especially because I have no faith that he would do anything but nominate from the more leftward part of the range. Why wouldn't he? Mrs. Ginsburg's construction of the Constitution is far more in harmony with Mr. Giuliani's construction than those of Messrs. Scalia, Roberts, et. al., are with Mr. Giuliani's.

If Mr. Giuliani wants to make clear that he will reject any nominee who would uphold Roe - and will require an explicit, public answer from any possible nominee - then I'll determine whether his promise is worth as much as the piece of paper on which it's printed.

In terms of his honesty, however, tell me how honest he was in his marriages. Tell me how good his promises were to the women he married and dumped. In the case of Mrs. Hanover Giuliani, rather brutally.


sitetest


172 posted on 03/04/2007 9:53:44 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
He spoke favourably of Ms. Ginsburg, but what he has said is that he would appoint judges in the mould of Alito and Scalia.

The difference between you and me is that you insist on seeing the glass half empty when it not only is half full, and could be secured in being half full. If social conservatives make a deal with him in exchange for their support, the appropriate judges appointment can be made an element of his coalition. If social conservatives spit in his face, this becomes less secure.

Ivan

173 posted on 03/04/2007 9:56:30 AM PST by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
George Bush is pro-military, he's fighting the war on terror and he's fiscally conservative...well, okay that last one is open to debate. If these three qualities make up the nucleus of good presidential candidate that people support, why aren't President Bush's approval numbers sky high?

One word:

Iraq.

President Bush could have been remembered fondly as a tougher, less charming version of Ronald Regan had we either not gone into Iraq, or gone in with a serious plan to win and the balls to do it right. While I applaud his principaled stand on Iraq, it's a shame it wasn't backed by equal levels of competence. Voters will tolerate a lot of things, but they won't accept ongoing failure in military matters.

174 posted on 03/04/2007 9:57:13 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: narses
Crap! Liberals do not cut taxes nor are they hard core law and order advocates nor are they outspoken on fighting this GWOT to a victorious conclusion.

Frankly I don't give a hoot about your peripheral political agenda on things that TODAY, in this time and place don't matter a wit. One thing matters and one thing only. The GWOT and our continued commitment to winning.

One more time...9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING
175 posted on 03/04/2007 10:04:33 AM PST by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV
" One more time...9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING "

So we dump conservative values and elect a draft evading liar? No thanks.


176 posted on 03/04/2007 10:06:09 AM PST by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: narses

Thanks for your support

signed

Hillary


177 posted on 03/04/2007 10:08:07 AM PST by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV

Your support for Hillary's policies via Rudy are also duly noted.


178 posted on 03/04/2007 10:14:15 AM PST by narses ("Freedom is about authority." - Rudolph Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: narses
A Democratic victory means that, our enemies in Iran will have 4 full years to nuclearize unopposed. Possibly 8 years. Maybe the Saudis can follow suit, and have a 2nd product to export, if President Gore's alternative fuels catch on?

Or perhaps President Clinton could send her old friend Maddie Albright back to North Korea, when we catch them selling nuclear weapons to anyone who's checks clear. A few bottles of champagne later, everything will be right as rain.

Or President Obama can stand tall after the next 9/11, and let the world know that America is sorry for whatever it is we did. If that means cutting Israel off to assuage Arab humiliation and counter Western colonialism, then so be it.

This type of short-sighted nonsense is appalling, in a post 9/11 world that is rapidly going nuclear.

179 posted on 03/04/2007 10:15:09 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

I think he can win the nomination, in which case I would have to vote for him. I'm a strongly pro-life and pro-family conservative and I'd be comfortable voting for Guiliani over anyone offered by the Democrats.

Yesterday, I was at a scouts' Pinewood Derby and posed the exact question to some other conservative daddys. I was surprised at how strongly they all came out for Rudy; all liking Hunter, but feeling he isn't going to make it all the way to the nomination, not preferring Romney and 2 saying that they could not vote for McCain.

I think it's immoral to stay home on election day and having voted for Perot in '92, I think it's stupid to vote 3rd party. Guiliani keeps saying everything that I want to hear and for the most part I believe him to be sincere. A socially conservative VP would make him an viable candidate to me.

One thing that I believe that he does need to work on is his message on illegal immigration. If he's flip flopped on this, I could hardly fault him because within the last 5 years I have also gone from being soft on illegal immigration to understanding that we are in a crisis. I say that I was "soft" on this issue because it had always been my expectation that the current administration would have actually done something about it. Boy, was I ever wrong!

Despite what appears to be a lot of secular posturing, I believe Guiliani really understands and respects the law. I feel this way even when I disagree with his positions. I think the law is an "inconvenient reality" for liberals and they would move the goal posts to suit their own agenda. I think Guiliani is a bit deeper than this.

Currently, we live in a lawless nation, where illegals are rewarded and regular taxpaying citizens are harassed I think Guiliani can change this - I also believe that (in certain areas) he can be bent to the will of his conservative constituency. My vote is still developing, he definitely ain't Reagan, but so far Rudy is looking "pretty okay".

Finally, when everyone at this forum is bemoaning the situation of conservative leadership, I simply have this to think about; how could he be ANY worse than what we have now. President Bush is a man whom I believe to be sincere and honest, yet he neither communicates or advances a conservative agenda. To me, he's on the right side of an issue like stem cells, then he doesn't communicate his position. In other areas he does not champion or advance the principals of conservativism.

How could Guiliani do worse?


180 posted on 03/04/2007 10:19:44 AM PST by incredulous joe ("When everyone’s super, no one will be!" - Syndrome, from "The Incredibles")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-300 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson