Posted on 04/03/2007 4:02:00 AM PDT by Liz
The Giuliani '08 juggernaut just ran head-on into Podhoretz's First and Last Law of Politics, namely: No politician seeking the nation's highest office can do as much damage to another as he can do to himself. --SNIP-- The question before us today is whether Rudy Giuliani committed a blunder of comparable proportions by consenting to a Barbara Walters request for a joint interview with him and his wife Judi - during the course of which he said, embarrassingly, that he would welcome her presence at Cabinet meetings and listen to her closely on issues relating to health care.
Until that moment, he had handled his presidential bid as perfectly as could be imagined......his four months of bliss came to an end when ABC News released the first snippets of the Walters interview last Thursday..... Walters moment only revealed that Rudy ......thought he could say something cute about his wife that really wasn't cute at all - seemed perhaps more about currying favor with her than about finding the appropriate balance between portraying a loving marriage and depicting a future presidency. Of course, what Rudy was doing with Barbara Walters was an effort....- to neutralize the damaging effect of his marital history by being open and clear and honest. He did that well.....then he muffed it.
News of the Walters interview began a 96-hour ordeal for Giuliani that included the leak of his grand-jury testimony in the case of his former police commissioner's ties to a crooked contractor - potentially his most serious liability - and the revelations that Judi Giuliani has actually been married more than twice and had worked for a medical-equipment firm that used (and thus killed) dogs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“In other words, lets become more like the Democrats. That’s pretty sad. If that is what has become of the Republican party, they will just keep losing, as more and more conservatives will just stay home on election day.”
How do we become more like the Democrats? In fact the Dems have very little to say about abortion these days—or about gun control. They are all fired up undermining our military and betraying our resolve in Iraq. That’s where the passion is—and the debate. In this Rudy and the Democrats couldn’t be more different.
As for losing, the contrary will be true. We lose only because social conservatives like yourself sit on their hands every time they’re annoyed by something—while the left wins all the independent votes. This time around Rudy will have the independents and moderate Democrats in his hip pocket—which will more than compensate for the few conservative zealots who stay home.
You don't win the votes of Democrats without embracing Democratic policies. That's so obvious, I'm surprised you asked the question.
We lose only because social conservatives like yourself sit on their hands every time they’re annoyed by something
You can keep telling yourself that. But a large section of the country isn't going to vote for a fiscal conservative, socially liberal Republican, because they want to continue getting those hand outs. So the move will be toward less fiscally conservative candidates, and next thing you know, there's no differences at all between the two parties.
Rudy will have the independents and moderate Democrats in his hip pocket
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that 'moderate Democrats' will support Rudy in the general election, and I believe that independents will be turned off by his dirty laundry.
There really are few differences between Hillary and Rudy. I find it funny that some continue to call Rudy a fiscal conservative when he has said more than once that he believes government should fund abortions for the poor.
At this point, I have not become so disgusted that I will stay home on general election day rather than vote for Rudy. Not yet. And I haven't decided to vote for a third party in the general election - yet.
It is becoming tempting, though. Social issues are extremely important to me. You've shown clearly that some in the Republican party want to marginalize social conservatives. That's fine - your choice. Just don't complain when you lose our votes.
I'm sure your next post (or someone else who posts in response) will be something about President Hillary. As a social conservative I say "so what." What makes you think I should be concerned about your hot button issues when you so obviously distain mine?
You mistake my position. I consider myself a social conservative—but I recognize that this is a big country with 300million+ citizens and not all of them think as I do and that the perfect can often be the enemy of the good. I also believe that the only way to assure the preservation of social conservatism is by returning the Congress to the GOP and preventing the consolidation of power by the Democrats in ‘08. We can’t do this unless we win some blue and purple states. You may wish to ignore this problem—but many formerly Republican bastions are turning Democrat—places like OH and PA. More people now call themselves Democrats than Republicans—by some 15% according to Michael Barone. The Dems have other advantages—the support of the MSM, for example. Only somebody like Rudy can give us the chance we need to win in a landslide—why shouldn’t we take it?
Agreed. But when it comes to killing one million babies a year. . .that is so heinous to me that if the Republican party chooses to abandon the fight against abortion altogether, I can't in good conscience continue to support the Republican party.
You are using highly emotive language about killing babies while not thinking the political angles through sufficiently. The goal should not be to nominate an ideologically pure candidate without a ghost of a chance of winning blue states. The goal should be to defeat the Democrats at all cost. To do that we have to start thinking outside the box. It’s the Democrats after all who would populate the courts with liberals in order to push their liberal social agenda. Rudy would not do this. He supports strict constructionism—and has said so repeatedly. Rudy is therefore not the problem you seem to think he is; in fact he’s the solution because if he is able to win big in places like PA and OH and NJ and CT and OR and MN and FL and CA, he would usher in a GOP Congress—where we’d have a much greater chance of pushing through the right judges than we’d have if we ran a weaker candidate. Think about it.
If the 'political angle' won't do anything to fight killing babies, and that is my hot button issue, why should I care?
The goal should be to defeat the Democrats at all cost.
Why should that be the goal if my hot button issues are ignored? Why should I care about YOUR hot button issues if you don't care about mine?
It’s the Democrats after all who would populate the courts with liberals in order to push their liberal social agenda.
Rudy has made it clear he thinks abortion is a constitutional right. He will, naturally, try appoint judges who agree with him.
And since he believes abortion is a constitutional right, he believes a strict constructionist would believe the same.
he would usher in a GOP Congress
If he only ushers in more like himself, that isn't a win from my perspective.
"Arrogant and smug" - that about sums it up for this pair. As a New Yorker, I saw on a daily basis that Rudy really took to the role of being the god of his own little universe.
I didn't see this interview, so would you please let me know a couple of things:
In the interview, Judith Giuliani also addressed...her relationship with Giuliani's son....
Did she also address her relationship with Guiliani's daughter, or her relationship with her own daughter who she abandoned in order to be with Rudy?
In the interview, Judith Giuliani also addressed her husband's public breakup with his most recent former wife....
WOW! Where can I get a transcript of that???? I'll want to hold onto it for the 2012 election, when some future Mrs. Giuliani will address her husband's public breakup with his (then) most recent former wife, Judith. LOL!
I remember one of Rudy's arguments during the alimony settlement phase of his last divorce, i.e., that his wife was not sympathetic and supportive of him during his bout with prostate cancer. I really think that was a bit of an unrealistic expectation on his part due to the fact that he was carrying on an affair with Judith at the time. Did Judi address this particular aspect of her husband's public breakup?
Anyway, dear Liz, you and pissant are quickly becoming my anti-Guiliani heroes! :o)
Oh my! I didn’t know that anyone from Connecticut could be so rakish and swashbuckling!!!! :oD
The 20/20 segment was meticulously produced to limit discussion to certain subjects.
Barbara was briefed beforehand by the Rudy Campaign Machine---she asked only questions the two had rehearsed.
The biggie which they figured would advance his candidacy---the raison d'etre for the 20/20 sitdown----was that Judi wants to be in the Cabinet (an idea which bombed bigtime and had the campaign backtracking furiously).
Barbara was briefed to ask how Judi felt as the "Other Woman." This gave Judi the opportunity to look Really Really Sincere and how she and Rudy were Really Really Honest with each other and what a Really Really good marriage they had.
I guess Judi might be angling for the post of Secretary of Third Time's a Charm.
The thing that really gets me is that there are supposedly conservative people from all over, who will not listen to a New Yorker who has “lived with” Rudy on a daily basis for a number of years. The NY media is pretty extensive, and there was Mayor Giuliani news literally every day from multiple sources.
I remember when Rudy was actually *pro-life*, until he lost his first Mayoral election to David Dinkins. When he came back to run again, he was suddenly pro-abortion. Stuff like this doesn’t get reported in today’s campaign news, but when offered up for discussion, the pro Rudy people just don’t want to listen.
Rudy wanted to be able to invite Judi to public functions in the same house that he occupied with his wife and children. I remember the public humiliations that he subjected his wife to. He wanted his children to meet Judy, and a judge had to set conditions. All of it was thoroughly covered by the media. Besides the liberal agenda he espouses, who on earth would want to elect a person of no character like him? Is it just to give the GOP a win? What would we actually be winning? Not anything having to do with conservative values!
I don’t hate Rudy, but I must present an accurate picture of the man, and yes, he really is that bad. If he wins, we will be getting Hillary after all.
“If the ‘political angle’ won’t do anything to fight killing babies, and that is my hot button issue, why should I care?”
But that’s just the point, it WILL fight killing babies. Which party in power is opposed to abortion? If you know it’s the Republican Party, then it’s incumbent upon you to vote for the man who can best bring it back to power. Rudy is clearly the lesser of two evils. He has promised to nominate strict constructionists whereas Democrats are openly committed to protecting and expanding abortion rights and are pro-actively supportive of it. I’ll admit supporting someone like Rudy is a tough decision for social conservatives to make—but the stakes are enormously high, not only on the issue of abortion but also on the issue of national defense and the war on terror—and only Giuliani has a broad appeal in blue and purple states. Ultimately he is the greatest danger to the left.
“Why should that be the goal if my hot button issues are ignored? Why should I care about YOUR hot button issues if you don’t care about mine?”
But I DO care about your hot button issues. We don’t disagree about abortion or gay rights or gun control. I share your concerns. We differ only on the best strategy for achieving our goals. My view is that only by defeating the Democrats and securing the Congress for the GOP can we protect our values. You don’t want to think about that long term goal. You just want to vote for the man who reflects your point of view—even if he would lose us seats in the Congress. That’s politically suicidal and would do greater harm to conservative values in the long run.
“Rudy has made it clear he thinks abortion is a constitutional right. He will, naturally, try appoint judges who agree with him.”
You go beyond what he has said. He has said it is legal—and it is!—and that as long as it is legal, he would support a woman’s right to access to it. He has said morally he is opposed to it. He has never said, however, that it’s a right founded on the Constitution. He has said he would leave that up to knowledgeable jurists who are strict constructionists and would appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. That’s significant in my opinion—and in the opinion of conservatives such as Ted Olson who have known Rudy for decades and have followed his career closely.
“If he only ushers in more like himself, that isn’t a win from my perspective.”
Rudy has nothing to do with who is running for Congress. He only influences the vote by reducing the number of ticket-splitters. This is why big winners have coattails—but the people who win as a result have been selected in local processes having nothing to do with the man at the top of the ticket. So it’s not true Rudy would usher in those who believe as he believes. Rather he would usher in the very people who support the views you hold. This is why I say you are not thinking clearly on this issue. You need to take a longer view and realize the consequences of not supporting someone like Rudy with a capability of winning in a landslide, winning not only the South and the mountain states, but on the east and west coasts as well.
You mischaracterize the 20/20 interview. Judith Giuliani did not come off as affecting a pose of sincerity, but rather seemed a very unpretentious, intelligent, dignified lady. And she seemed sincere about loving Rudy simply because she obviously does. There was no need for her to pretend about anything. It was as simple as that—though Rudy-haters would have us think otherwise.
As for Judith being in the Cabinet—the word “Cabinet” was never used and Rudy explained he took this to mean only policy meeting—of which there are many during any administration. He also said this would be limited to areas in which she would be interested, such as health—she is a nurse. He never envisioned her sitting in on Cabinet meetings acting as co-president. That’s absurd.
Yeah, true........but only to those who exist in a mindless moral and intellectual vacuum.
Try to remember that not everyone is as vacuous as you are.
Nice and neat wrap-up. Says it all.
“Try to remember that not everyone is as vacuous as you are.”
Except, perhaps, yourself—judging from the lameness of your response. Try using your intelligence next time.
Rudy will not get the support of the NRA or the GOA. Maybe where you live thats not an issue but, in alot of other areas of the country it IS. My dad who lives just outside of NYC will not vote for anyone that is not endorsed by the NRA. Rudy will not get the support of the right to life movement either, especially after he went on the record saying that abortion is a constitutional right. There are just some things that people will not budge on, those two are biggies for alot of people, especially in the south and midwest.
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.