Posted on 04/11/2007 2:19:47 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Thirty-eight percent for Rudy; 16 percent for McCain. On the surface, the latest Gallup Poll of GOP voters is great news for the Giuliani campaign. Mitt Romney scored just 6 percent, less than Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich (10 percent each) -- two guys who aren't even officially in the race.
But the apparent collapse of the McCain candidacy (it's early yet) may end up being a problem for Rudy. Deep distrust of McCain as the designated GOP front-runner has to some extent shielded Rudy Giuliani from the focused opposition of social conservatives.
Personally, I know I tried really hard to find a way to make the match work. But it takes two to tango, and Rudy's clearly not interested in meeting anyone -- not me, not most of his spouses, not his son -- halfway. Or a quarter of the way. In fact, being Rudy, he's not budging a step. All the deep-seated longing for rapprochement clearly runs in only one direction.
I'm not sure Rudy gets it: Big and strong is good, but only if it's used on our behalf and not against us. A big strong guy who just doesn't care what you think is scary, not reassuring. The same Rudy who cleaned up the mean streets of New York is the same Rudy who used his leadership abilities to dump his wife via a press conference and then tried to make the rest of us feel ashamed for caring about how he treats his family. It's the same Rudy who came out swinging to defend his new wife (whom he clearly loves) and left his son slowly twisting in the wind with dying hopes of some attention from his dad. That's the same Rudy who last week endorsed public funding of abortions as a constitutional right, thus killing two birds of hope with one stone.
In 1989, Rudy stated "there must be public funding of abortions" and criticized President George H.W. Bush for vetoing federal funding for abortions. Asked by CNN if this remains his position, he said: "Probably ... Generally, that's my view." When asked, "Would you support public funding for abortion?" Rudy answered, "If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes." Ultimately, he said that if it's a constitutional right, you have to provide public funding to make sure poor women can do it.
As the editors of National Review recently pointed out, this "makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense." No statements issued afterward by campaign spokespeople can undo the revelations of the way this candidate actually thinks and how he will govern.
Put the abortion issue aside for a moment, and think about what Giuliani has just revealed about how he thinks of the Constitution: If you believe in the First Amendment, does the government have to buy poor people printing presses? If you believe in the Second Amendment, must the taxpayers buy guns for poor folks? What kind of "strict constructionist" would say the government must pay for something if it is a constitutional right? For that matter, what kind of fiscal conservative would ever make such a claim?
Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear: Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in good conscience can vote for Rudy.
So what are people like me supposed to do? "I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me," Rudy said in South Carolina last week.
OK, Rudy, you got yourself a deal.
This is an excellent article on the Trouble With Rudy
If he wins the primary, they get to print stories on how the conservative movement in the GOP is dead; all one has to do is pay lip service to them. His personal life and political scandals make for great news stories, and also make him easy to tear down in the general election in favor of the Democrat nominee. (Ignore the current poll numbers, they're a result of name recognition only. When the campaign starts in earnest, character and positions will come more and more into play.) On the off-hand chance he actually wins, the media won't be happy, but at least they know they'll have a pro-abortion, pro-gay "Republican" as opposed to a conservative.
If Guiliani loses the primary, then the media gets to run with the story of how the "right-wing whackos" derailed the campaign of the great, moderate hero known as "America's Mayor"... a heart-wrenching tale of how Christofascist Taliban destroyed a candidacy for one or two "trivial" differences in philosophy.
So, Guiliani is a win-win for them. They stand a good chance to get the political result that they want, and get some nice headlines in he process.
Rudy is a disaster looking for a place to happen. I wouldn’t vote for him if he put a S&W.44Mag to my head. Arrogance personified.
I know that, I just thought the particular randomness I was seeing was funny.
I guess RG figures he can steal votes from the democratic candidate, but the republican voters, who have nowhere else to go, will vote for him, even if they have to hold their noses.
I have a right to be armed. Should the goverment pay for my gun?
I’m an early supporter of Rudy, but I am not happy with his latest comments on abortion. I did think his statements abotu the type of judges he would appoint were helpful. However, for me the WoT remains the one overarching issue this election. Until another stongly pro-life candidate can demonstrate traction in the polls, and $$$$..I will have to remain with Rudy..
The Constitution is not living and breathing. It is deader than a door nail. Just ask all those killed in it’s name. Oh, wait, guess you can’t since their dead too.
Second thoughts from a pro-life pundit who had originally been open to Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy.
A very misleading headline.
I think that perhaps you’re reading more into what Mrs. Gallagher wrote than perhaps she meant.
In some sense, we want presidents who are “big and strong.” We want folks who can project their leadership presence (big) and who are principled and will stand by their principles, especially when the going gets tough (strong).
Mr. Giuliani has been seen in the past as such a leader, especially in the immediate aftermath of September 11. That’s pretty much the rationale for his entire candidacy - that he would be a strong war president.
Some weeks back, Mrs. Gallagher had been leaning toward Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy for that reason - that he’d make a strong war president. Now she sees that a strong president is good if he does what is good, but perhaps not as good if he does what is evil.
It’s the difference between pushing the little old lady into the path of the oncoming bus, and pushing the little old lady out of the path of the oncoming bus. In both cases, one is pushing a little old lady. But there’s a difference in the moral valance of the two actions, physically identical though they may be.
Myself, I’d certainly prefer a strong war president. But one that understood that the right to life is a fundamental human right, and who would use his leadership presence and his strength in the face of difficulty to defend human life, all human life, rather than to defend the lives of the born against external enemies while funding the death of unborn human beings procured by their own mothers.
I think that perhaps Mrs. Gallagher is starting to think that way, too.
sitetest
Rudy has it backwards, apparently you do too. The issue is 'should the party switch to help Rudy to achieve his goals', or 'should Rudy accomodate the party to achieve its' goals'. IOW, who determines where the bus goes, the driver or the passengers?
Maggie nails it. If Rudy or McCain want the nomination, they'll have to do a 180 on some issues, and soon. The Democrats switch all the time, re abortion and the war on terrorism. Thats one thing they do right.
That's entirely possible. Certainly my reponse to this particular column is influenced by the her strong, and growing, tendency to favor big-government initiatives.
If this is what he thinks, he's wrong.
I can see your point, although I don’t think polls at this stage in the process have any meaning other than wish-fulfillment for the persons conducting the poll. We’ll have polls that matter when the primaries begin!
Regarding the WoT, I honestly don’t see why Rudy should be considered a particularly strong choice. He has no government experience of defense, and his role post-9/11 was disaster recovery and confidence-building, not defense (and even less, offense).
What, specifically, do you anticipate he would do, as President, to make us safer from jihadist attacks?
“However, for me the WoT remains the one overarching issue this election.”
I am truly puzzled about why people think that RJ will be such a warrior king when it comes to the war on terror.
All I ever saw him do was to run around after 9/11 and give pep talks. He also told a few Arabs where to stuff it.
BFD. Any two bit politician would have done the same.
Anyone care to show me the error in my thinking?
I’m confused by your post. Do you not think that an important purpose of the early campaign season is for candidates to discuss their beliefs and intentions in some detail, so that voters can identify the candidate who would best represent them?
I think I just said almost exactly the same thing, only with very carefully chosen Niceties.
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.