The Candidates
??????? This piece from W. James Antle III of The American Spectator does a good job of summarizing the?rapidly deteriorating possibility?of religious and social conservatives co-existing and forming a coalition with Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race due to abortion. And while there seemed to be room for compromise between the two sides, the Mayor’s flippant?plus legally and morally inconsistent recent remarks about the issue, in addition to his similarly terse and incoherent thoughts on gun control, have arguably caused an irreparable rift that is going to cost him significant conservative support.
Mayor Giuliani?didn’t exactly?have conservatives at hello, but many of them were listening to and considering him up until he failed to speak their language on the issues they care most about. Now,?some of?his staunchest supporters in the media, such as John Podhoretz and the editors of National Review, are opining that the Mayor “has tied himself in knots” and squandered an opportunity to form a broad and winning coalition over his recent pronouncements on social issues. Ah, what might have been.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Thanks for posting this, agreed. I was very, very scared of Rudy after his strong showing in CPAC.
At this point, I think its only a matter of time until McCain gets his act together and overtakes Rudy as the front runner.
And God knows what Fred Thompson will do to Rudy’s numbers if he makes it official.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Good post but the editors mischaracterize the Mayor’s stance on tax payer funding for abortion.
Mayor Giuliani has been very explicit, and since 1973 the Supreme Court agrees, in saying that abortion is a constitutional right. I dont believe that, but Rudy and the SCOTUS does. But the Mayor has been very clear:
“I also, on public funding or funding of abortion said I would want to see it decided on a state by state basis. And what that means is I would leave the Hyde Amendment in place.”
So, to say that the Mayor has “squandered” an opportunity with social conservatives is total non-sense. His campaign had a series of miscalculations and it will certainly not happen again. For people like Billy, where abortion is their single and only issue, the Mayor will never be able to win over their vote. But with people who are pro-life but it is not their main issue, the Mayor will be able to win over with his strong stance on the GWOT, market based solutions to health care, and his proven record of reducing taxes and reiging in spending.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Geoff, the National Review editors have it right when it comes to Giuliani and abortion.
Mayor Giuliani may have been explicit here, but his position is not internally consistent or legally sound. If you believe a fundamental constitutional right must be subsidized for the poor then the federal government has to do it and, in this case, that would require the Mayor to be for rescinding the Hyde Amendment (which prevents federal subsidies for abortion) - which he is not.
Giuliani is trying to have it both ways - claiming he supports the Hyde Amendment but maintaining he is consistent in calling for public funding of abortion because he would have the states do it. And that doesn’t work because the basis for his claim that abortion should be subsidized is the fact that the Supreme Court has made abortion a fundamental right (which is correct, at least for now), which would require federal funding to pass constitutional muster. It is unconstitutional to force states to pay for purely federal programs, which is what subsidizing a fundamental constitutional right would be.
Add to that the fact that the Mayor’s theory that fundamental consitutional rights must be subsidized for the poor really makes no sense and certainly has never been the law. We don’t pay poor people to marry, procreate, keep their families together, and purchase and use contraceptives - which are some other unenumerated and implied fundamental constitutional rights (along the lines of abortion) that the United States Supreme Court has recognized.
The Giuliani miscalculations, which also include having different levels of gun control by jurisdiction, are now part of the permanent record. Those are his positions. If he changes them he will be just another flip-flopper who has experienced a campaign conversion.
Sure, the Mayor will still get support from Republicans who aren’t big on social issues because he does have a lot to offer in other areas. But there are lots of social and religious conservatives who will not be able to support him - and they are a large enough bloc to cause him major problems. It will be an amazing feat if Giuliani can win the Republican nomination as a fairly staunch pro-choice and anti-gun candidate; nobody has done it in modern times.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Who has run a good campaign so far?
- McCain has not attended a number of Conservative events, who have punished him accordingly.
- Romney has run a very good campaign (although he hasn’t had much success with the voters yet)
- Gingrich has kept himself relevant, but doesn’t have the ground presence.
- Huckabee has run dreadfully, failed to take off, poor fundraising.
- Brownback has done ok, but is yet to solidify the social conservative movement. Little success in the polls.
- Fred Thompson has garnered good press, yet to build a ground operation but certainly abvoided negative comments so far.
- the rest are irrelevent.
So you have to say only Romney has done well, and even then a few missteps (hunting?) undercut that. Fred Thompson has campaigned well as a non-candidate, can he do well as a candidate?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Geoff,
Why did Rudy oppose the Hyde Amendment in 1993?
Either he was lying then or he’s lying now. Neither makes him look good.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Yeap, this abortion issue over the next year is gonna hurt Rudy. Today’s supreme court ruling will propel Brownback. He has been all over the press for that, social conservatives are going to remember this.
With this ruling abortion is put into a new light now..
April 19th, 2007 at 3:37 am
JayPe (from #4), I asked that question the other day in commenting on a posting. And my analysis is that none of the Republican candidates have run good campaigns yet.
I would not include Gingrich and Fred Thompson because they have yet to declare, though I would commnent that their waiting to declare seems to be working well for them as the current front-runners wear out their welcome (as Karl Rove warned against in starting the campaign so early).
I agree with what you have come up with otherwise except would include Romney as stumbling because of things such as his policy flip-flops and the completely transparent and amateurish claim to be a lifelong hunter and recent application for NRA membership. In addition, being first in money raised but third, fourth, or fifth in the polls does not reflect a great campaign.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Rudy must be the nominee or else brace yourself for President Mrs. Bill Clinton!!!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 7:13 am
You guys who are still harping all over the abortion issue are the killers of the republican party’s chances in 2008. If you guys really care so much about being “pro-LIFE”, I suggest that you GET ONE.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:37 am
You guys who are harping over ignoring the abortion issue and promoting Rudy Giuliani are the killers of the Republican Party’s coalition. Which is worse?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Right on zena01 and KT we need to win this thing
April 19th, 2007 at 8:51 am
…and we will win this thing. I will vote for Rudy if he becomes our nominee. I do have serious moral issues with the practice of abortion so I can’t consider supporting a pro-choice Republican in the primaries when there are other options.
I seriously don’t buy in to this line that only Rudy can win in 2008. I never will…
April 19th, 2007 at 9:17 am
cwpete–The Republicans might be lucky to win at all. I think only Rudy and McCain might with Rudy having the best chance. I also have serious moral issues with abortion so we have to keep the Democrats out. As a practical matter only the USSupremes will change abortion law, Democratic congress won’t.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Matt - you are talking about the coalition of the ignorant, stubborn and mean ultra-right wing of the republican party, NOT the average voting republicans who are smart enough to know that there are far more critical issues facing our country than ABORTION. So, go ahead and nominate your wealthy, pandering, flip-flopping phony == Mitt Romney. Then we’ll have a democrat in the white house for absolute certainty.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
KT,
I don’t think that you understand what primaries are really for. They are for the vetting of new ideals our party has to offer, they are for the showcasing our our finest and most qualified / accomplished candidates for office, they are a time for reflection of values so that we can decide as a party what the issues are that makes us Republican.
The fact of the matter is the abortion issue is something very meaningful to most conservatives. Abortion will always be a hot-button due to the nature of the act. Asking me to completely disregard that in a primary where there are many options is simply not possible. It is also not fair as I think it is good to have this discussion every primary season to reflect what our values are.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Rudy’s instruction to pro-lifers that they should “just get over it”
clearly demonstrates that he does not understand the political potency
of the movement. I gather he has never attend the March for Life where
hundreds of thousands of young people, year in and year out,
demonstrate for life in the midst of winter.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am
The claim that only Rudy can win as a GOPer in November of 2008 may end up being a canard. How can he win in November of 2008 if he divides the Republican Party?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
KT,
Regardless of your belief that pro-lifers are ignorant, stubborn, mean, and ultra-right-wing, you’d best come to recognize that pro-lifers make up one of the larger minority voting blocks in the GOP.
The concept of a big tent requires that everyone under it get some attention on their most important issues…this is called a consensus. Trying to ram a candidate like Giuliani down the throats of socons is not a bright idea. As one political commentor said recently, pro-choicers are welcome in the tent…just keep your hands off the poles.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
As a socon, we won’t win this election over abortion–besides the abortion laws will only be changed by congress anyway.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Grant, did you know that the President needs to sign Congress’ laws in order for them to pass?