“I think your “far right” and “far left” description isn’t really accurate or useful, because there is not a commonly accepted definition of what issues are left or right (e.g., the second amendment, which both libertarians and social conservatives support). Giuliani is the farthest thing from a middle-of-the-road, centrist compromise candidate, as is amply proved by the many GOPers who will not support him if he’s the candidate.”
You say that my definition is not accurate or useful because there is not a commonly accepted definition yet you go on to use a left versus right definition to claim that Giuliani is no middle of the road centrist. I agree definitions are slippery but I don’t think my description that the libertarians and the social conservatives are the two ends of the republican spectrum is inaccurate or useless. It fits generally. And the middle would be small govt conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think Guilianni could capture the middle and even attract quite a few libertarian conservatives based on his excellent fiscal reform record. Libertarians and small govt conservatives would settle for a candidate who would just get spending under control.
“It would be more accurate to describe three major and overlapping GOP constituencies: social conservatives, libertarian conservatives and national security conservatives. Significant chunks of two of these three groups have stated that they will vote third party or sit it out if Giuliani is the candidate. Whether or not you agree with that approach, it’s a fact. In a very evenly divided electorate, how does Giuliani win without big segments of 2/3 of the traditional GOP constituency? Where does he make up those votes, plus a some more to put him over the top?”
Whether or not I agree with that approach, it’s a fact? Gee, I guess because you say it’s a fact it must be true. Actually I don’t think your definition is any better than mine, in fact I’ve never seen any definition of conservatism break down the way yours does, while I see definitions close to mine all the time. Just go here for just one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism#Types_of_conservatism
As it is Guiliani is seen as a centrist/moderate by Rassmussen more so than any other candidate. He has favorability ratings way higher than any of the Republican contenders. He is also seen as having a better chance of beating any of the rat top contenders. But yeah without the social cons lending him significant support in the general election he will probably lose. Thanks alot. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
Uh, yes, I was still disputing your assertion.
I think Guilianni could capture the middle and even attract quite a few libertarian conservatives based on his excellent fiscal reform record. Libertarians and small govt conservatives would settle for a candidate who would just get spending under control.
Some might, but many including me and a lot of other small-l libertarians on this site would not. Many small government and libertarian types aren't going to settle for the hope of spending control when the candidate has such a deplorable record on the Constitution.
Whether or not I agree with that approach, it’s a fact? Gee, I guess because you say it’s a fact it must be true.
Are you disputing my assertion that many social conservatives and small-l libertarian conservatives state that they won't vote for Giuliani should he win the nomination? Have you read any other Giuliani threads on this site? Many, many people have said this -- that's what the heated arguments over the last three months have been about.
Actually I don’t think your definition is any better than mine, in fact I’ve never seen any definition of conservatism break down the way yours does, while I see definitions close to mine all the time.
You've never seen a breakdown of the overlapping conservative coalition described as social conservatives, fiscal/small government conservatives, and national security conservatives? That's the Reagan coalition, typically described as a three-legged stool: http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.455/pub_detail.asp
Or, if you prefer, this is from your own link: An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming the politics of 1980s United States, galvanizing the success of the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his economic policies, known as "Reaganomics," foreign policy conservatives who favored his staunch opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union over the détente of his predecessors, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.
But yeah without the social cons lending him significant support in the general election he will probably lose. Thanks alot.
And, as we've discussed, without many libertarian conservatives. If you concede that he will probably lose, why do you argue in his favor? If electability doesn't matter to you, and you simply support Giuliani because his beliefs are closest to yours, then Godspeed. But if electability is a priority for you, why not move past Giuliani to a candidate whom all segments of the GOP can vote for?