The GOP’s “Rudy Problem”
By Rick Moran
While running well in the polls against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s apparent Anointed One, some Republicans are unhappy with the prospect of Rudy Giuliani as their standard bearer.
And surprisingly, many Rudy doubters are not part of the Christian right who view the former New York mayor’s pro-choice stance with a jaundiced eye.
Indeed, many secular conservatives simply don’t trust Giuliani’s instincts. They are torn between the practical political reality that Giuliani might be the best national candidate to face off against a liberal Democrat in what is shaping up to be a Democratic year at the polls across the board and the fact that Rudy has behaved in a decidedly unconservative manner on occasion, calling into question his bona fides as a man of the right.
Part of the problem is surely the fact that conservative Republicans are as rare as hens teeth in New York City and that in order for Giuliani to run, win, and govern effectively as mayor, compromises with some conservative principles were inevitable. Leaving aside his position on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, Giuliani appeared to coddle illegal immigrants by ordering city employees not to contact the INS about immigration violations.
Rudy has since explained that he didn’t want illegals hesitating to report a crime out of fear of being deported. Others point to his advocacy for “sanctuary cities,” leading a suit that went all the way to the Supreme Court against a federal government decree that forced city employees to cooperate with the INS in matters involving illegal immigrants.
He also famously said that the Welfare Reform Act “did more harm than good” largely because he felt it was “anti-immigrant.” He accused the pro-enforcement lobby of being “anti-immigrant” and thought sentiment against immigrants was “one of the most serious problems” of the day.
Then there was the fact that the Conservative Party of New York refused to put him on their ballot, citing his endorsement by the Liberal Party and his views on “affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer, and tuition tax credits.”
Giuliani was elected and then re-elected as a “law and order” moderate with a history of reaching out to minorities and other constituencies not normally associated with membership in the Chamber of Commerce or Young Americans for Freedom. He held the line on taxes and spending while advocating vouchers for public school children. In short, the former mob prosecutor demonstrated that he believed in conservative principles of governance – as long as they didn’t interfere with his ability to govern and maintain his popularity.
On top of all that, the Republican party has not nominated as president a resident from the northeast since 1956 when Eisenhower was chosen by the party faithful.
All of this has many conservatives wishing there was a more ideologically sound alternative but recognizing that in order to stop Hillary Clinton, Giuliani with his appeal to moderates may be their best bet. And the split in conservative ranks between the religious right and the more secular oriented libertarian conservatives has prevented much of the party’s right wing from coalescing around a single favorite thus allowing Giuliani to run on his “electability” credentials instead of his adherence to orthodox conservative principles.
But Giuliani is far from a shoo-in despite his continued lead in national polls. Those same polls show him getting around 30% of the GOP vote which is a long way from the 50% he needs to win the nomination. As the field narrows, it may very well be that so-called “values voters” and main street conservatives who don’t trust Giuliani will discover a candidate more to their liking and finally come to an agreement in order to stop Rudy from winning the nomination outright. This was the idea behind Fred Thompson’s campaign. Thompson has not gotten out of the box and lit a fire under conservatives as it was once thought he would. But the former Tennessee Senator still has time to find his voice and start uniting conservatives under his banner. Whether he has the ability or even the desire to do so may be open to question.
Giuliani’s number one problem is with the anti-abortion crowd who tend to be the most committed voters in the Republican party. Several leading lights of that movement have already made it plain that they will never vote for Giuliani under any circumstances. To lance that boil, Giuliani addressed the “Values Voters Summit” in Washington this past weekend not to make any converts but to show that despite his pro-choice stance, he shares many values with the religious right. By all accounts, it was a good performance but didn’t win him any new friends. A straw poll taken at the Summit had Giuliani finishing dead last.
Whether Giuliani’s appearance at the Summit and outreach efforts to the religious right will prevent the GOP nightmare of the anti-abortion true believers forming a third party to put a candidate on the ballot who would siphon votes away from the Republican nominee is not known and probably won’t be until after the primaries are over. And given Giuliani’s problems with other conservatives, the prospect that the GOP may end up with a nominee with which most of the base is not enamored is a real possibility.
The last time the base was less than enthusiastic about a candidate was in 1976 when Gerald Ford narrowly lost to Jimmy Carter. That year, conservative hearts were with Ronald Reagan but Ford’s incumbency was seen as making him more electable. As a result of that ennui, enough conservatives stayed home to give the election to the Democrat.
Can something similar happen in 2008? Given how evenly divided the electorate has shown itself the last two elections, even a small percentage of conservatives who choose to sit this one out could very well make Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
MY problem with Rudy is he’s anti-gun. Even after his “pro gun” sheach, when asked about “Semi-auto assult rifles” – he still said they should be banned, that no one needs them. LOOK at his gun record in NYC – including banning many kinds of rifles in NYC, and raising the fees you have to pay to register any rifle/shotgun in NYC (Yes, you have to register rifles/shotguns in NYC)
That said, if it comes down to Hillary Vs Rudy, I’ll vote Rudy – it may be the 1st time since I became 18 in Dec 1980 when NY state actually is in play, and my vote might make a difference
This is the first thing you must realize: the election will take place over a year from now! One should be very cautious about trying to figure out what people will do at that time. Most of them are not currently obsessed with politics. A high number of voters are far more concerned with the World Series and this weekend’s football games. Rudy Giuliani will likely win the Republican nomination—-and the GOP will come together to stop Hillary Clinton. This is especially true when they realize the destruction she will cause in the struggle against Islamic nihilism. The Democrats are dishonest pacifists and incapable of dealing with the evil actions of dark skinned people. Senator Clinton will bring to Washington leftists who believe the West is responsible for the rage of the Islamic crazies. The consensus viewpoint of these ideologues is that the war on terror is a greatly exaggerated notion. They will do just anything to put a stop to our military efforts throughout the world.
Very well written, Rick, and exactly to the point. The Republican party may well have to lose 2008 before they wake up and realize they can’t force people like Rudy down our throat. And this costant fear-mongering about Hillary needs to stop; as you pointed out in your comparison to Ford/Carter, this notion of “our candidate is lousy, but their candidate is lousy-er” isn’t going cut it.
Henry Cabot Lodge??? Uh, that was Californian Richard Nixon who Mayor Daley helped defeat in 1960. You were close though: Lodge was Nixon’s running mate.
“And this costant fear-mongering about Hillary needs to stop…”
Excuse me, what in hell are you talking about? The consensus view of the Democratic Party elites is that the war on terror is essentially nonsense. This is not something I’ve invented. I strongly advise you to spend some time to read their articles and books. You are grossly uninformed.
You also mentioned the Ford vs. Carter contest. Many Republicans abondoned their presidential candidate because he picked Nelson Rockefeller to be on the ticket. This resulted in Cater’s election—and his foreign policy decisons caused an incredible amount of destruction. He abandoned the Shah of Iran and essentially turned the country over to the radical Muslims.
David, what’s the worst thing she could do? Team up with Teddy K and try to throw open the borders? Nominate some hack with no qualifications to the Supreme Court? Massively expand entitlements with a drug program for seniors?
And I didn’t expect you to roll on the fear mongering easily. When your candidate has been married three times, is in favor of grabbing guns, and sets up sanctuary cities, what other lever can you use on social conservatives?
“David, what’s the worst thing she could do? ”
Could do? No, will do! The Democratic Party establishment does not take seriously the war on terror. Their current behavior already proves this beyond a doubt. They are downright hostile towards the very concept of combating Islamic nihilism. Please note their recent efforts to embarrass Turkey by attempting to pass the resolution over the Armenian massacres of a century ago. “Mainstream” Democrats are psychologically and existentially incapable of dealing with the misdeeds of dark skinned people. At this very moment, these elites are telling the American people not to worry so much about Iran. Republicans often leave much to be desired. Nonetheless, when it comes to the war on terror—they are the only game in town.
This article has it all backwards. What will hand victory to the Democrats is NOT to nominate Rudy.
Yikes! Thanks JE for the correction.
Don’t know what I was thinking – obviously more concerned about my joke re: the Chicago graveyard vote.
Guys, there are not enough “movement Conservatives” in the Country to elect a President, and there will not be until you somehow make a lot more of them (fine with me, BTW). Rudy is a mainstream Republican in the tradition of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Plus, he has the personal force to be enormously effective. To refuse to support him is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The problem is not Rudy. The problem is the current incarnation of the Republican Party which although it has had some ‘temporary’ success is as doomed as the dodo if it continues to rely on its current base.
All that now preserves it is the asinine ‘progressive’ wing of the Democrat Party. It’s screaming yin to the Republican screeching yang so to speak. Thus far the screaming is more annoying than the screeching to the uninvolved. If or rather when the Democrats get their collection of maddened yahoos under control, and Hillary is just the type that can do it, the long slide to marginalization will start in earnest.
Rudy is not part of the problem ; he is part of the solution. But evidently like all those trapped in a self-delusional belief, the Republicans cannot see the forest for the trees.
All that needs to happen is for Ohio or Florida to switch sides on a more or less permanent basis. Then where would the Republican Party be ? And frankly that eventuality is not all that hard to envision. Much easier than envisioning that New York or California or even Pennsylvania will ever vote for the Republicans as they now exist.
Were it not for the War this electoral revision would already have happened. Once Hillary proves herself to be a fit commander-in-chief(and she will because she is clever and smart, and TOUGH), the Republicans are kaput.
Frankly as long as someone is properly attending to the jihadis, good riddance as far as I am concerned. I’m fed up to HERE with hearing about VALUE VOTERS. They don’t really reflect my values at all. And I hardly think that i am alone.
I got turned off Rudy after
1) listening to him talk about how cutting taxes enhances revenue (true)
2) learning that he left billions of dollars in debt for Bloomberg to pay off — with higher taxes.
We’ve been there, done that.
I also am tired of the narrowmindedness and desire to exclude of so-called “value voters.”
Jesus kicked the moneylenders — not the homosexuals — from the temple.
I love Duncan Hunter on foreign and trade policy. (And why is “FAIR” trade scorned by the Club for Growth?) But his “life begins at conception” speech is based on an ignorant definition. A fertilized egg is a POTENTIAL human being, not an ACTUAL human being. And that definition makes a non-abortion alternative — the morning after pill — an act of murder. You cannot begin to know how many women HATE hearing men piously rant on this subject.
My choice for President is Fred Thompson. Speeches that bring people to their feet is not his forte. But I’ve read a lot of his opeds, watched his videos and I think that he moves damn quick when need be
*the video rebutting Michael Moore on health care,
*his response to Chris Matthews being snotty in his first debate
, *his growly rebuttal of the “lazy” charge in his second debate.
*and most of all, he has Reagan’s gift for the memorable one liner: on illegal immigration: “It’s our house and we should be able to decide who enters it.” (Take that Vicente)
I can just see dictators Putin and Kim Jong Il and the Iranian nut job peeing at a Thompson scowl and growl remembering what a Japanese admiral once said of us: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve.” Thompson personifies: “Don’t tread on me”. The best guarantor of peace we can have.
The job at stake after all is not bossy nanny nor inspirational preacher. it’s Commander In Chief.
While the tone may rub the wrong way at moments (women and pro-chiocers never “piously rant” on the abortion issue? Please), I concur with the gist of Sandra’s comment. The President of the United States ought have as little to do as possible with values and social issues. He/She is not going to fix the swath of immorality in our midst, no matter how earnestly he prays.
And by the same token, neither should the president be involved in setting school policy or fixing inner-city blight or tilting at any of the other windmills pointed out by the chattering class. The security and stability of the Republic as a whole is his business. Everything else is a pointless distraction.
Thompson’s talk on federalism leads me to believe that he understands this. Giuliani has made similar noise, but as others have said, I do not trust the man’s instinct’s to grant him a primary vote.
That said, I will happily give him the nod should he be facing off against Hillary. I don’t see why that should be a difficult decision. If libertarians can hold their nose (twice) for Bush, then the V.V.’s can do it for Rudy.