Posted on 06/11/2007 7:49:21 AM PDT by Kuksool
Since former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially threw his hat into the ring as a candidate seeking the presidency of the United States, the conservative media have been more than kind to his candidacy.
A number of recent polls indicate the former federal prosecutor leads an ever-growing field of Republicans seeking their party's nomination. Many conservatives seem to be in denial when it comes to Giuliani's liberal social leanings, including his positions on abortion, homosexual marriage and gun control.
For example, one of Giuliani's strongest supporters seems to be Sean Hannity of Fox News. In one interview with Hannity, when queried about the abortion issue, Giuliani, a skillful politician, did all he could to portray his pro-abortion views in the most favorable light. But as expected, Giuliani did not and could not tell Hannity he believed in the sanctity of life because the truth is the popular New Yorker supports abortion rights, even though he addressed the issue with the skill of an experienced tactician.
Unfortunately, Hannity and some other conservatives in the media seem willing to accept Giuliani's shortcomings regarding social issues simply because he could potentially defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in a head-to-head election. Conservatives must not fall into such a trap. Positive reactions to a Giuliani candidacy by conservatives is troubling for those who believe that overturning Roe v. Wade may be one U.S. Supreme Court justice appointment away. During President Bush's last term, he may have an opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court justice, and, hopefully, Bush will follow his past pattern of choosing a strict constructionist for confirmation to the high court. But if conservative members of the media begin to support candidates of either party for their electability rather than their position on the issue of life, it could lead to a disaster of great proportions.
There is much more at stake regarding the upcoming fight for the White House. With the appointments of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the pro-life movement is closer than it ever has been to reversing the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. If the nation's next president is a pro-abortion Republican, it would virtually guarantee Roe v. Wade will stand as law into the foreseeable future.
However, with the Democrats now controlling the U.S. Senate, the battle to confirm a Bush nominee would be heated, to say the least. But if Bush nominated a bulletproof jurist reminiscent of the Roberts nomination, the Senate would be obligated to fill its mandate regarding Bush's choice. The same can be said for a pro-life president who might follow Bush.
However, if Giuliani wins the GOP's presidential nomination, it would set a precedent that might stand for years to come. There are many Republicans who believe the party should take a turn to the left on social issues. A victory by Giuliani in the primary and a subsequent win in the presidential election would doom Republican social conservatives to the back of the party's political bus.
Indeed, if the next president of the United States is not pro-life and is a Republican to boot, it would skew the political debate over the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement would, essentially, no longer have a political home, and the hopes that abortion would one day become a dark and distant memory of America's past would be dashed.
Social conservatives in the media must stand behind presidential nominees who embrace the sanctity of life. Sacrificing these values is not worth the price of victory.
Who is that?
We are the conservative “media”.
He turned around the City, you must admit. Also, he DID do a good job during/after 9/11. The city needed a take charge personality, and he took charge. Call it superficial, but personality matters in moments like that, and in leading a war.
My main point, however, was that his abortion stand will prevent him from getting my primary vote.
“Giuliani candidacy IS unacceptable to pro-life voters”
But a President Hillary or Obama Is OK?
The next president will probably be picking at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.
LOL, if “the conservative media have been more than kind to (Giuliani’s) candidacy”, and we are the conservative media - we’re apparently killing him with kindness....;-)
Same old straw man argument. Fred Thompson not only can win pro-life voters, he can also win the general election against either Obama or Hillary.
Not if they're Meir'ed in controversy....
SPOT ON! Giuliani is the darling of the "character doesn't matter" wing of the party and the MSM.
LOL. Just keep Rudy away from the White House.
The economy and specifically the stock market were on a roll during Rudy's term and this meant increased tax revenues for NYC. I haven't seen any indication that he cut spending, so the "turnaround" was more a result of increased revenues from economic growth. So, I don't see any reason to give Rudy credit for this, it was going to happen regardless.
Also, he DID do a good job during/after 9/11.
Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel did a good job in creating calm in the days after Pearl Harbor. He was subsequently fired and history shows that his failures paled in comparison to Rudy's. Rudy KNEW that the Twin Towers were a target and still decided to put the city's command center in an adjacent building. Rudy KNEW that evacuation would be critical if the Towers were ever attacked again, yet did nothing in over seven years to address this. There are many countries around the world were Rudy's "reward" for his actions surrounding 9/11 would have been a date with the executioner.
And we have every reason to believe that Rudy's choices would be every bit as liberal as Hillary's or Obama's.
Normally in politics, you never approve the whole package, but eliminates the alternatives from the bottom taking into the consideration that you should calculate the electability of the candidate. If Rudy will be the ROP candidate on the election day he will most likely win the presidency, thus he is the best candidate.
Does Guiliani have a position on illegal immigration?
Bush is hated by the right because of the borders. Maybe if Rudy is tough on illegal immigration, Conservatives will come back to him.
He ran NY like a mob boss, doing whatever he wanted and shunning those who didn't agree with him.
I don't trust his judgement.
As has been said many times, now is the time to be sure our choice is NOT between Hillary and Rudi, because the media is being soft on rudi right now. They won’t be if he is the nominee and there is too much baggage there for him to beat Hillary.
Rudy believes abortion is a Constitutional right. Therefore, to Rudy, overturning Roe v. Wade amounts to judicial activism. When he says he'll nominate strict constitutionalists, it means he'll nominate pro-abortion judges.
President Giuliani guarantees 8 years of pro-abortion SCOTUS nominations. President Obama or President Clinton gives us a chance to elect a pro-life President in 2012. Plus, as GWB showed us, it is very hard politically to oppose a President from your own party. It will be very difficult to block the appointment of a pro-abortion judge nominated by Rudy. It won't be as difficult to do the same if the pro-abortion judge is nominated by a Democrat.
“Issue number two is securing our borders and stopping illegals from coming into the country.”
Rudy is an UNACCEPTABLE AND DANGEROUS CANDIDATE on immigration and border security / national security.
Rudy isn’t just bad on abortion, he is a pro ‘sanctuary city’ guy on immigration... he is very bad on immigration, on gun rights, on abortion, on family (pro-gay rights anti-FMA). On domestic issues in the 199s0, he thought Clinton was doing a fine job.
“I believe the anti-immigration movement in America is one of our most serious public problems.” — Rudy Giuliani, Oct. 10, 1996.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/23/rudy-the-mayor-of-sanctuary-city/
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002011.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782954/posts
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005877.html
Guliani supported the Bush position on immigration. Guliani will be more liberal on immigration than Romney and Thompson and certainly the real hawks like Hunter and tancredo.
HOW CAN RUDY BE GOOD FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN HE’S WEAK ON ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE CITIES?
““Giuliani candidacy IS unacceptable to pro-life voters”
But a President Hillary or Obama Is OK?”
That argument is as foolish as saying that we all have to become democrats and vote for Hillary to stop the bad event of President Obama happening.
Rudy isn’t just bad on abortion, he is a pro ‘sanctuary city’ guy on immigration... he is very bad on immigration, on gun rights, on abortion, on family (pro-gay rights anti-FMA). On domestic issues in the 199s0, he thought Clinton was doing a fine job.
he has no special skill nor insight in fighting the GWOT.
His background is as a prosecutor, and he’d make a good head of FBI. That’s it.
... and on Judges, his debate #1 response was telling: He thinks a good constitutional judge could uphold Roe v Wade.
Consider immigration:
“I believe the anti-immigration movement in America is one of our most serious public problems.” — Rudy Giuliani, Oct. 10, 1996.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/23/rudy-the-mayor-of-sanctuary-city/
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002011.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782954/posts
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005877.html
Rudy’s nomination would destroy the GOP.
It would be a lose/lose for conservatives on Nov 2008.
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.