Rudy: The Pro And The (So)Con
Terence P. Jeffrey gives us a preview of the kind of mud hardcore ’socons’ will throw at Rudy:
Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”
Good point, Rudy.
Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?
Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?
Not where conservatives want America to be.
Good God…quick, raise your hand if you think America is hungry for that sort of self-righteous venom. I see one hand in the back – you’re dismissed, now go see a shrink.
In the land of normality, JPod writes for the rest of us:
Republicans not only like Rudy, they want to like him. Conservative Republicans want to like him. Socially conservative Republicans want to like him.
In this respect, he represents a momentous change from prior candidates hailing from outside the party’s socially conservative wing.
Past “liberal” GOP candidates and would-be candidates have sought the nomination by taking strong stands counter to the views of the party’s conservative base – like Elizabeth Dole opposing handguns in 2000. Those candidates, that is, were engaging in battle against the social conservatives. They were fighting a culture war within the GOP, trying to rally the party’s more socially liberal elements – women and suburbanites in particular – to defeat the hard-line element.
Even John McCain, with a sterling Senate voting record on such matters, ran for president in 2000 by criticizing social conservatives when it came to abortion for what he called “the polarization that has existed and continues on this issue.”
Rudy, by contrast, is trying to convince social conservatives that he’s their friend. They disagree on certain matters, he’ll say, but on the key issue of our time – the struggle of the West against Islamic extremism – they’ll never have a better or more staunch ally and leader.
And while his personal views on some issues may differ from theirs, he’ll appoint judges in the manner of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito – which is, in the end, most of what a president can do to support the ideas in which social conservatives deeply believe.
It may not work. But he’s knocking on an open door. Giuliani’s support is solid and quite deep, and his numbers are very strong.
Which analysis do you find more persuasive? If we want to lose, we can follow Jeffrey’s advice and run an irrelevant campaign demonizing gay Americans and stirring up the always tedious abortion pot – or we can play to our party’s strengths and nominate a man who has the public’s trust and support on the matters that mean the most…
UPDATE 10:44 a.m.: Oh, and by the way – there’s no longer any doubt, he IS running:
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani jumped into the 2008 presidential race yesterday, filing a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and declaring on national television last night, “I’m in this to win.”
Giuliani’s actions were aimed at erasing any lingering doubts about whether he would enter the 2008 campaign and came after an intensive month of activity in which he has stepped up his political travels, broadened his political team and expanded his fundraising operation. A formal announcement will come later, Giuliani said.
Good God Mark, the first primary is still political light years away and you are already calling for social conservatives to abandon their principles.
Mayor Giuliani is already a strong candidate because he is a supporter of the Global War on Terror and he has a solid record of fighting crime. He is also very likeable.
However, Mayor Giuliani does have a few conservative chinks in his armor. Abortion, gun control, and gay marriage are the chinks. Conservatives do not want a President who is like the present governor of California. Conservatives want a President like a certain former governor of California who was unabashedly opposed to abortion.
Giuliani should do well enough to win if he makes all three of his chinks about States rights and conservative judges. Otherwise, he will split the party and hand victory to the Democratic nominee.
I’m almost certain Mayor Giuliani knows what he needs to do to win. Labeling social conservatives as the bad guys or defending his socially liberal positions is not a winning strategy for Mayor Giuliani.
Perhaps you should call on Mayor Giuliani to change a few of his positions instead of asking social conservatives to abandon their principles. Social conservatives may be willing to compromise, but don’t bet on them abandoning their beliefs.
No one’s asking anyone to abandon their beliefs; I share many, if not most, beliefs of social conservatives.
However, how I choose to behave privately and how I think our nation should be governed are two different things.
If we want to keep the White House, we need to avoid such things as demonizing those whose lifestyles differ from ours, and intentionally reigniting the culture wars…we need to remember that the person elected in 2008 is going to have to appeal to more than the base, because, if you didn’t notice in 2006, the base has shrunk…
Video: Giuliani Talks ‘08 on Hannity & Colmes
After pretty much making his candidacy official yesterday, Giuliani didn’t waste much time addressing his so-called liabilities on social issues. And thankfully, it doesn’t appear that he’s going to flip-flop to try to win Republicans votes; instead…
Giuliani is “very likable?”
He was my Mayor for two terms — there are a lot of (positive) things you can say about Giuliani, but I’m afraid that “likable” isn’t one of them –
(Not that likability is important — I would rather have a President who has vision and judgment, couldn’t care less if he/she were likable or not)
Sorry, likeable & likeability
Peter, your opinion on this matter is not universally shared. Here’s Marc Ambinder from Hotline On Call:
[Giuliani] enters the race more admired; and, not only more admired, more-liked than any presidential candidate since Eisenhower. His national poll ratings do not simply reflect name recognition. They reflect the intrinsic bond that Giuliani formed with the country in the days after 9/11.
How many other real (by which I mean to exlude Al Sharpton) presidential candidates have hosted SNL?
Hi Peter,
Yes Mayor Giuliani is very likeable or he would not be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination. Democratic maybe, but not Republican. : – ) His likeability allows him to overcome his left leaning social views. Chuck Hagel is not likeable no matter what his views are. Chuck Hagel has no chance.
Hi Again Mark,
I know this sounds a little like John Madden, but the candidate who becomes President will be the candidate who gets the most (electoral) votes on election day.
Republicans will be in just as much trouble if social conservatives stay home and don’t vote as they will be if fiscal conservative social liberals stay home or vote Democratic. When you start February 2007 by saying social conservatives need to suck it up, you are already taking sides and creating a formula for defeat. To win, both side will need to do some up sucking.
At this point, I expect Mayor Giuliani to be the Republican nominee and win the Presidency. However, for a whole year, he is going to have to court social conservatives because social conservatives do not think winning the Presidency is more important than their religious beliefs.
David, I don’t want to be misunderstood as taking shots at all social conservatives – instead, I’m talking shots at a very specific subset like Mr. Jeffrey who try to tar and feather Giuliani because he’s not 100% compatible with their core issues. Mr. Jeffrey can feel free to support Sam Brownback, and then enjoy watching Madame President give her acceptance speech.
My point is this: abortion and gay rights are not going to be the issues that win or lose this election, they are always going to be controversial, and to focus on them with an overly moralizing attitude is a surefire path to defeat.
I think we’re on the same side here: Rudy has to assure social conservatives that he is open to their needs, and social conservatives will always be a big part of the Republican base…but he also has to assure moderates that they can come back home…and he needs to focus on his strengths and not get bogged down in ideological litmus tests that go nowhere…
Hi Mark,
Yes we are on the same side. Yes, Mr. Jeffrey’s “My way or the Highway” attitude will lose the upcoming and every other election. But Mr. Jeffrey is no more dangerous than a Republican social liberal who will not vote for a social conservative candidate.
Over the years, many a Republican candidate has lost because the Republican social liberals did not support the Republican candidate. Republicans are a rare bird in California now because social liberals would not do what you are telling social conservatives to do.
Over the years, social conservatives are constantly told to shut up and just vote for a winning candidate. Over the years, most social conservatives have followed this advice.
When it comes time to vote, everyone has to vote for someone who is less than ideal. At the beginning of 2007, both parties should spend a whole year (and a half) producing the best candidate. Now is not the time to tell social conservatives to shut up. Now is the time to see where voters and candidates stand on the issues. There is plenty of time before we have to cast a single vote.
Rudy is certainly admired — but I think that is different from being likeable — when voters outside the NYC area get to know him better, I think he will be seen as prickly and abrasive.
Not that there is anything wrong about that — only that he won’t do well in the would-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with-him surveys.
Rudy’s Running
Favored in the polls and still carrying the charisma of the 9/11 aftermath, Rudy Giuliani has announced that he’s running as a Republican for President. I like Giuliani. He’s one of the few GOP hopefuls that seems to have the
Not that there is anything wrong about that — only that he won’t do well in the would-you-want-to-have-a-beer-with-him surveys.
Huckabee will nail that down, although the Diet Guy may not be drinking many beers.
I continue to believe/hope that JPod is right, and that Rudy can tackle his problem with socons by insisting that, as a law and order guy, the kind of judges he will appoint are the kind of judges they want.
He ought to be able to present it as an issue of mutual respect, with a message of look, we disagree, but I won’t be working against you.
OK, that may not be exciting, but come the general election, he will look better than any of the Dems on offer. And I suppose we can count up likely Supreme Court seats from 2009-2013.
“Conservatives want a President like a certain former governor of California who was unabashedly opposed to abortion.”
Governor Reagan signed a bill that legalized abortion in California. Let us not re-write history.
He was for it before he was against it.
Rudy will need some social conservative votes to secure the nomination but he certainly does not need them to win the general election. A down-the-line conservative (far right, if you will) has as much chance of becoming President as a far left liberal. The Republicans can guarantee a loss in ‘08 by choosing a candidate from only those that are anti-gay marriage and pro-life.
Bob from Ohio,
I’m not rewriting history, but you are certainly being disingenuous.
Do you know the story behind the bill Reagan signed?
Do you really believe President Reagan was pro-choice?
Do you believe President Clinton was for welfare reform?
too many steves,
No Republican can possibly win the Presidency without a significant portion of the Social Conservative vote. A Social Conservative Republican couldn’t win without a significant portion of the non-social conservative Republican vote, either.
All of the wishing in the world will not change reality. The country is balanced between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties need all of their members to vote for them. If you think the Democrats are not going to demonize Mayor Giuliani and make him appear far to the right of President Bush you haven’t been paying attention.
David, I appreciate your concerns and again, I don’t wish to bash social conservatives (God knows, in an age where Paris Hilton appears to be the most admired celebrity by our country’s young women, we need MORE social conservatives).
I just posted a new item, though, that points out (rightly, I think) that if it comes down to McCain/Guiliani (and I know that’s not guaranteed), socons will go wtih Giuliani. What say you?
Also, curious as to your thoughts on the idea being floated of Rudy/Huckabee…
“disingenuous”? Pot meet kettle.
Ronald Reagan was a born again pro-lifer who did nothing as president to support pro-life causes. Yes, I do believe that he was personally mildly pro-choice as was the first President Bush. Like Clinton’s conversion on welfare reform, Reagan’s conversion on abortion was driven by politics. There is no evidence that he personally cared much about the issue. He did what he had to do politically.
President Reagan was a great president whom I voted for twice. There is no need to whitewash him by claiming that he was “unabashedly” pro-life. It is just not true.
Clinton’s “conversion” to welfare reform was “driven by politics?” Any evidence to support that?
Clinton advocated welfare reform in his campaign and his SOTU address. His leadership in getting the 1996 welfare reform bill passed was opposed by many Democrats and was probably the most controversial thing he did in his first term. Seems to me he did the right thing for the right reasons.
Hi Mark,
For the most part, I do not agree with social conservatives. I am a small “L” libertarian with two big exceptions. I think abortion is evil and I think American military involvement oversees is justified and necessary in defeating regimes that do not value economic freedom or the sanctity of life.
However, there is still a voting block of social conservatives that must be appeased. Social conservatives are not the bad guys; they just see the world a little different than libertarians.
Like the current President Bush, Mayor Giuliani is mostly a moderate who believes in government solutions to social problems. He is to the political right when it comes to taking the fight to our enemies. Therefore, Mayor Giuliani stands the best chance of being elected if the war in Iraq does not turn out to be a disaster.
I agree that Mayor Giuliani is preferable to Senator McCain to most Republicans including social conservatives. Again, it has more to do with likeability than issues. Senator McCain is not very likeable.
Governor Huckabee may end up the VP candidate for Mayor Giuliani, Governor Romney, Senator McCain or whoever else wins the nomination. Governor Huckabee is from the south and he has governed as a moderate in a state that has more Democrats than Republicans. He is also likeable, but a little boring.
Hi again Bob from Ohio,
I do not consider President Reagan a saint or a great president. He was a good president who stood up to Communism and spoke out strongly against abortion as a candidate and as president.
Most good people mature as they age. President Reagan may have been more ambivalent about abortion before deciding to run for president, I don’t know. However, I do know you have miss-represented his position on abortion as governor.
You used a fact to misrepresent the truth. Either you don’t know the truth or you are intentionally misrepresenting the truth.
BTW, America is much more pro-life now than when President Reagan served. You can claim he didn’t help the cause as president, but something changed in the hearts and minds of Americans after his presidency. He did what he could.
Peter: “conversion” may have been too strong but there was a lot of talk at the time that welfare reform was an issue Clinton grabbed to show he was a “third way” democrat. See Dick Morris for example.
I don’t see anything wrong with politicians using political reasons for their actions so I am not being critical of either Reagan or Clinton really.
I am critical about being called a liar:
“You used a fact to misrepresent the truth. Either you don’t know the truth or you are intentionally misrepresenting the truth. ”
According to a January, 2007 column at Townhall.com ( a conservative site) by Floyd Brown:
“President Reagan did not always take such a strong position against abortion as his rhetoric implies. Indeed, he signed into law a permissive abortion bill early in his California governorship which has resulted in more than one million abortions. He publicly later regretted this decision, and he said it was the biggest mistake he made in government.”
Bill Clark said that Reagan did not anticipate the increase in abortions due to his signing the law so changed his views. Fair enough. So, I think “conversion” is just about right.
So, Mr. Smith, educate me how I am getting it wrong when Reagan stalwarts agree with me?
Hi Again Bob from Ohio,
Floyd Brown contradicts your original claim. I agree with Floyd Brown.
President Reagan was not perfect on abortion, but as President he was a strong outspoken opponent of abortion.
Why are you trying to make it sound like he was not?
Bob: I think Clinton genuinely was a “third way” Democrat – who would have expected a Democratic President to champion welfare reform, free trade, and balanced budgets?
Mr. Smith:
My original claim was:
“Conservatives want a President like a certain former governor of California who was unabashedly opposed to abortion.”
Governor Reagan signed a bill that legalized abortion in California. Let us not re-write history.
You said that Reagan was “unabashedly” opposed and implied that he always had been in comparison with the current governor. The fact that as governor Reagan did not oppose abortion is a historic fact that disproves your point. He did in fact convert to a pro-life view. Which was my whole point.
Peter: Fair enough, I doubt his genuiness but that is my personal feeling, no doubt based on my dislike for him. The facts certainly support your conclusion.
Actually, Bob from Ohio, the fact that President Reagan signed a bill to legalize abortions in California while he was governor proves that you are being disingenuous because you also know for a fact he later regretted signing the bill and he always spoke out against abortion as a candidate for president and as president.
What President Reagan did unabashedly as president is not the same as what he did as governor. Social conservatives and others do want a president like President Reagan.
Rudy 2008 [weekend open trackback]
MSM Round-Up: City Journal, Fox News (Special Report with Brit Hume), Fox News (Hannity & Colmes), New York Post, Forbes, Real Clear Politics (2), Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, FrontPage Magazine, Daily Mirror, National Review, France24, The Hill, Sk…