Conservatives should abort Rudy's bid

While there obviously are pro-choice Republicans around, the GOP generally ranks as the pro-life party due to its presumed conservative roots. Conservatism sees intrinsic value in each individual - no matter the person's stage of development - and defends his or her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, opposition to abortion serves as a conservative policy pillar.

But what about all that conservative talk in favor of individual choice and against government interfering in people's lives? Those conservative principles still stand tall, but abortion is no mere personal choice. The line must be drawn against snuffing out innocent human life. The first job of government is to protect such life.

Unfortunately, some New York Republicans have been anything but pro-life conservatives. That includes former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who not only seeks the Republican nod for president but has led the race in recent polls.

Based on his record running for and serving as mayor, it's fair to say Giuliani was not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion. He supported government funding of abortion, opposed a ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure and objected to parental notification before a minor could get an abortion.

And in April 2001 Giuliani sealed his pro-abortion credentials by speaking at the radical National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League's (NARAL) "Champions of Choice" lunch. He said it was "an honor to be here."

Because some prominent social conservatives lost?

Which prominent or not social conservative won in '06? Did Santorum win because of he was a socon? Did JD Heyworth win in AZ coming after the illegals? Did Jim Talent win in MO (MO! the buckle on the Bible belt!) genuflecting before the guns, God, and no gays crowd? Too bad beating one's breast doesn't work getting out the vote or the socons would win hands down every time.

The anti-Rudy's have done nothing more than let their sanctimony get the better of their reason. As Coach Lombardi used to say, 'if you're not going to lead, then follow or get the hell out of the way.'

You have three examples here. The only one who lost by a significant margin and whose primary reputation was Social Conservative is Rick Santorum. Santorum lost because (a) his opponent was well-known as the pro-life son of a renowned abortion foe and (b) Santorum therefore made support for the Iraq War--and not social conservatism--his focus at a time when public dissatisfaction against it was heightening.

I doubt Bob Casey was a good alternative for social conservatives, but the Democrats won by providing social conservatives with an alternative to the GOP, and many of them apparently took that alternative. If the Giuliani types who post here take over the Republican Party, I am quite sure many more such alternatives will be offered to social conservatives in the very near future.

One election and you are running for the hills? Or maybe more appropriately, are hoping you are right that the socons don’t matter and the GOP can form a winning coalition with moderates and libs. What would be the point? Just call it pro-war democrats.

This “socon” crap is getting real stale.

Is the 2nd amendment a “social” issue to you? Seems to me its in the constitution, right after the one about free speech, assenbly and religion.

Is global warming hysteria a “social” issue? To Rudyfans, it doesn’t matter that he will “do something” like “go after the special interests” who cause global warming, when the entire thing is a F*****K farce.

Is ramrodding “hate crimes” legislation a “social issue”, or is it really an anti-constitutional, orwellian crock of poop? I vote the latter, Rudy is its cheerleader.

Is egregious use of Eminent Domain a “social” issue? I’ve always took property rights to be among the founding principles of our country.

Is suing the tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, and auto insurers just “social” issue noise, or was it an onerous, pompous overreach by the mayor of NYC?

Is being praised by the feminists a “social” issue? When it costs tax payers money to pay for Rudy’s abortions, forces beauty salons to have gender neutral pricing, spends federal money on day care for working women, and opens gov’t funded clinics for gays and lesbians, its social alright. Social engeineering, that is, in a very leftist direction.

Sorry, nancy, this lib don’t pass ANY test to be the GOP candidate

I keep asking this question; maybe you can anwer it for me.

Two separate GOP constituencies are at odds with Giuliani’s stance on the issues — social conservatives and small-l libertarian conservatives. Set aside for a moment your feelings about people who vote third party or stay home: If Giuliani gets the nomination, it’s a fact that some significant percentage of people from both of these groups will not vote for him.

In your estimation, where does Rudy get the votes to make up for this loss of historically GOP voters, plus some more votes to put him over the top?

OK if good ol boy conservatism is so popular why do all trends show otherwise? Bush at 30%...George Allen getting the boot. People under 30 now identify with the dims by a whopping 30% over repubs. Keep it up and you’ll be left with a few guys in Utah and Alabama and a few folks in the old folks home.

It would be great if you would provide links to your statistics so we can all discuss them -- thanks!

To your point, here is an interesting Harris Interactive article from 2004. It discusses the fact that the democrats led the pubbies in overall party identification by 21% in the 70s (and Reagan was still elected). It also points out that voters' self-described party identification has never been a very good predictor of voting behavior -- so your point about voters identifying with the donks just doesn't tell us anything one way or another about the actual election.

I look forward to seeing your stats so we can discuss this further.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444

From the article: Washington may be highly polarized by party but this year’s presidential and Congressional elections are likely to be won by the candidates who win the support of independent and moderate voters. The battle will be won or lost at the center.

Unlike some of the other polls, The Harris Poll finds that the Democrats still retain a small lead over the Republicans in party identification, although it has declined in every decade since the 1970s. Based on over 6,000 interviews conducted by telephone last year, one-third (33%) of all adults "consider themselves" to be Democrats, 28% self-identify as Republicans and 24% as Independents.

However, the average Democratic lead in party identification has fallen from an average of 21 percentage points in the 1970s, eleven percentage points in the 1980s, and seven points in the 1990s to only five points, so far, in the 2000s. There is no mistaking the huge change in party affiliation that has taken place over the last 30 years.

Some other polls report that the Democrats and the Republicans are now virtually equal. We believe the small differences between their numbers and ours reflect the use of slightly different questions; the trends are very similar.

Of course, party identification is not a very good predictor of how people will vote. Historically, Republicans were more likely to vote Republican than Democrats were to vote Democratic; so the long-term trend is nothing but bad news for the Democrats. The only good news for them is that their modest lead has not continued to decrease over the last two years, under the Bush administration.

Of course, most people who identify as Democrats and Republicans tend to vote that way in most elections. So, in most elections whoever gets a majority of the independents (now a quarter of all adults) wins.

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.