The myth of Rudy's electability [MUST READ!]

Most Republican presidential candidates can brag about attracting followers with their valiant stances on important issues.

Rudy Giuliani's followers support him because they think he can beat Hillary Clinton.

In and by itself, the reasoning of Giuliani's supporters is not illogical. Many people do take into account electability when voting for a primary candidate (although most will not sacrifice their basic principles in the name of an election victory).

The problem is, this perceived electability is the only thing going for Giuliani.

In fact, he is far less electable than the only other Republican frontrunners understood to be capable of beating Hillary, namely Fred Thompson and John McCain.

To this, Giuliani's people inevitably shout the following talking points: First, Giuliani's moderate standpoint will attract unaffiliated voters, and can help Republicans make up for the unpopularity they have inherited from the George W. Bush years. Second, Giuliani has a lot of conservative accomplishments going for him – just look at how he handled 9/11, reduced crime in New York City, and how he reduced crime in New York City while handling 9/11!

First, Giuliani is a liberal. He supports abortion, and welcomes illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities. He opposes gun rights. He supported a Democratic candidate for governor in New York, and among his 75 judicial appointments, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than eight to one.

Though he attempted to knock Thompson on tort reform in the last presidential debate, he failed to mention his own poor record on the matter. Only a few years ago he sued two dozen gun manufacturers and distributors for essentially being functioning gun manufacturers and distributors, calling them "an industry which profits from the suffering of innocent people."

Giuliani's supporters will concede that he is not that conservative on social issues, but that really it is a good thing because we don't want extremist evangelical Christians taking over the GOP. But opposing abortion, illegal immigration, gun control and liberal judges does not make you an extremist. It merely makes you conservative.

Knowing they lose on the social issues, the Giuliani team holds on tight to fiscal matters allegedly showing that the man is really conservative. Since economic questions are often not as black and white as social topics, the Giuliani team knows that critics will have a harder time debunking the myth of Giuliani's economic conservatism.

Giuliani tenaciously battled the line-item veto, which allows the executive to cut waste from legislative bills, taking the fight as far as he could in the courts. Giuliani also defied the promise of free trade – perhaps the only concept economists virtually unanimously support – through his ardent opposition to NAFTA.

These facts might explain why Giuliani indiscriminately answers "crime" and "George Will said I'm conservative" during the presidential debates as many times as Ron Paul brings up "foreign policy" in response to completely unrelated questions. Giuliani has nothing else to run on in order to win over conservatives. Unlike the other candidates, he cannot brag about his primary strength – the perception that he is electable.

But the fact is, the general election will be no head-to-head match up if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. In 2004, the Constitution Party ran Michael Peroutka against President Bush, now widely considered to have pandered to social conservatives in extreme fashion. You bet these social conservatives would run a candidate against nominee Giuliani. You bet the Libertarian Party would eat away more Republican votes. And you bet Clinton would win.

Giuliani is a liberal. And if nominated by the GOP, he would be a liberal running against someone who is better at being liberal. He would have to compete just as hard for conservative votes as for liberal and moderate votes, and he will lose.

Giuliani is not conservative. Giuliani is not electable. A thorough look at his record, the polls and the political reality cannot lead to any other conclusion. He's got the worst of both worlds.

“I certainly don’t agree with Rudy G on everything, but fact is the abortion genie is never going back in the bottle. Homosexuality is now open, that’s not going to change either. Some level of gun control is gonna happen. Deal with these things.”

I don’t think you get it. The gay activists are not all about ensuring that they are tolerated. They are all about forcing you and everyone else positively to approve of their behavior. As long as anyone anywhere continues to say that their acts are disordered or immoral, that there’s something disordered about the inclination, that person has to be silenced. Actually it goes farther than that, that person must be made to affirm them in their behavior as perfectly normal. They will not stop short of that. They will first try to convince people who don’t care much one way or the other (like you, perhaps) that it’s “no big deal.” They’ve pretty much managed that already. Then they go after the hold-outs—the “social conservatives,” nearly all of them religiously conservative. These people are now the object of hate crime legislation and the sort of regulations (enforced by bureaucrats unaccountable to the voters) being passed in California that forbid you and me to refer to “mom and dad” families as if they were the norm.

Don’t you get it? This is not a matter of indifference. It will come around to bite all of us sooner or later and the bite has begun. Unless you positively affirm that Heather’s having two mommies is just as normal as Ozzie and Harriet, you are a criminal. That’s where it’s headed. And you tell us to “deal with it.” Get your head out of the sand and wake up.

And abortion likewise will come to bite you in the butt. Already a Northwestern University law professor has argued that, since it’s foolish to claim that the unborn child, even at the earliest stages, is not a human being, one has to admit that it has interests that conflict with the mother’s interests IF the mother didn’t want to be pregnant. It then becomes not an innocent but a guilty human being invading her privacy because she did not want it. By the right of self-defense, she may kill it. Moreover, because the state is obligated to help all of us defend ourselves, if the woman needs help from the state to kill the unwanted unborn child, she has a right to state help (state-funding). Notice that the only thing that turns an innocent human baby (a wanted pregnancy) into a guilty privacy-invading human baby is the woman’s sheer will to be pregnant or not to be pregnant. By that reasoning, my will alone can turn a person who’s “in my space” into a guilty offender whom I may legitimately kill, not because of some specific criminal act he may have done (breaking and entering) but just because I don’t like him, don’t want him in my space. Sort of in the way Hitler didn’t want Jews “in his space.”

Particularly the claim that state-funded abortion is a woman’s right by virtue of self-defense means that you can’t just sit idly by and think of abortion as “out there” for those who want to choose it. No, sooner or later you will be paying for it via your taxes, if the Julieannies and the Hillaries take power.

Finally, gun-grabbing is not just an indifferent thing out there that you can tell everyone to “deal with it.” When the hold-outs on homosexuality and abortion become small enough in number and have moved to relatively remote places to get away from the forced indoctrination and criminalization of their beliefs by schools and bureaucrats and governments, then the gay-green-choice choice fascists will surround them and crush them without a whimper because their guns have all been grabbed long ago.

Not that there’s anyway that we could defend ourselves over the long haul with the weapons available to us even if gun-grabbing laws were not on the books. But at least we could go down manfully. But no, the gun-grabbing laws Rudy loves will have long ago castrated us. All that will be left is to lie down and let the tanks roll over us.

Unless, of course, we don’t “just deal with it” but announce loud and long now, while there’s still time to avert a Julieannie nomination, that we won’t “just deal with it” but will oppose RudyGee and that he is unelectable because he is so out of touch with the base, because he “won’t just deal with” the fact that the grass-roots activism that created all of the Republican electoral victories of the past 30 years is pro-life, pro-heterosexual, and pro-gun-freedom.

No, Rudy’s the one who needs to “deal with it,” deal with us. So far all he’s done is jabbed his thumb in our eye to show how tough he is, tough especially in fishnets and high heals and lipstick.

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.