Posted on 05/12/2007 2:07:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
HOUSTON - In a shift of tactics, Republican presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani acknowledged his liberal views Friday, calling a woman's right to choose an abortion one of his "core beliefs." After a week of criticism for making contradictory comments about abortion, Giuliani also said he backs gay domestic partnerships that aren't marriage and the right of states to restrict guns. Giuliani, a New York Catholic who once considered the priesthood, chose to make his stand before a conservative, Protestant audience at Houston Baptist University in an appearance arranged just Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldnet.com ...
***************
In what way?
And the followup question is: What does the GOP do when it goes down in a defeat of McGovernesque proportions?
*************
Giuliani will not be the GOP nominee.
He IS tearing the party (or at least much of the base) apart. One gander at Lucianne (where the split is about dead opposite of here - about 65-35% FOR Rootie) will prove that.
Well,
I was never going to vote for the gun grabber anyways, but you have to admire the fact that at least he was honest. Can anyone imagine one of the fake lib candidates actually going against the base of the party?
I could have lived with him being pro baby killing as long as he pledged to appoint strict constructionists to the bench. However, I can’t abide by a gun grabber.
I’ve felt this all along, if he gets the Republican nod, I’ll have to vote for the libetarian candidate. Sure, I know that the next Pres will probably put in two more Supreme Court justices (Buzzy Ginsberg and Stevens). However, if a dumbocrat gets in, at least the republicans in congress may fight them. With Rudy in, the Republicans in the congress would go along with implementing Rudy’s views. We could put up a real candidate in four years instead of putting Rudy up again in 12 also.
It’s actually good to see him being honest about it. In doing so he’s probably eliminated himself from the race, and we have a much better chance to get someone decent nominated. But I’m sure some Rudy supporter will come around soon to tell us how it’s reverse psychology to grab up the mushy middle vote in the general. Or that quoting Rudy is somehow bashing him, and that we all secretly want Hillary elected.
I don’t define gun-grabbing autocrats as “the party”. Do you?
“What happens if a new version of the GOP is crafted that appeals even more to the center?”
Then we’ll go elsewhere. A Republican Party that moves that far to the left (Guiliani is no “centrist”) is no longer worthy of the time of day, let alone money and votes.
Fred’s a gun-grabber? Fred’s pro-abortion?
Nope.
The center? Say what you really mean, the left.
Where are all the Rudy rooters now? They have their own little club now.
I can't see someone like Tom Tancredo being able to organize a party and get on the ballot in all 50 states between now and election day. Maybe Michael Bloomberg could organize and fund that effort, but Bloomberg and Giuliani couldn't run on the same ticket unless one of them changes his legal residence from New York.
If that scenario played out, the election would depend on who Mitt Romney selected for his running mate. A good conservative could allow him to hold together enough of the GOP to be elected.
Bill
The problem with that strategy is that the rest of the country isn't California. In California, the liberals control the state because they have such a huge population advantage along the coast. A conservative cannot be elected there, so conservatives were willing to support "Arnie" as the best of a bad situation. In the rest of the country, conservatives still want to maintain the United States as a good, strong nation and not the kind of liberal cess pool that we'd get when we allow Democrats and RINOs to make decisions.
So, the real question remains: what do SoCons do after he becomes the 2008 GOP nominee?
We vote for third-party candidates and try to hold together enough of our organization to regroup for 2010. Rudy Giuliani's nomination would suppress the social conservative vote because those who aren't as politically aware will just stay home rather than cast a vote that they see as meaningless. When they stay home, we'll lose the votes that we needed to retake Congress, and the Democrats will get more seats. Our hope is that we'd survive two years of Hillary having a Democrat Congress and go into 2010 with the GOP realizing that they cannot ignore our views.
Mitt Romney isn't the most conservative candidate, but I think he could be a pretty good president. The same is true of Fred Thompson. On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani is a liberal extremist on issues such as abortion and gun control. Most conservatives could follow someone who isn't perfect but respects us and our views. We cannot follow someone who is a liberal extremist and doesn't respect us.
Bill
Thanks for reminding me. I need to cut him a check.
He's not being forthright, though -- he's still saying he's always personally opposed abortion, which we know isn't true. He's being somewhat more straightforward, but not because that's his natural instinct, but merely because it's a tactical move.
Giuliani has no foreign policy experience -- he'd be stubborn, but would get rolled as Sec. State just based on his ignorance. How about John Bolton instead? :)
I don’t admire someone for his “honesty” when it’s still only a half-truth and when it’s the tactic of last resort.
One shudders to think what else might be on that list.
Yup. Sums him up quite nicely. He's a flaming liberal.
John Bolton is probably the best out there for State.
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.