I Just Can't Support Giuliani in the Primary
By EzOnTheEyez Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While I would enthusiastically back Rudy Giuliani in the general election against any Democrat, after seeing Giuliani on Hannity & Colmes, I came to a realization - I just can't back a pro-choice Republican in the GOP primary.
Abortion is the issue I had my political awakening over when I was somewhere between the ages of 5 and 7 years old. I heard the term on the news, and I distinctly remember my mother sitting at the dining room table paying bills while my father was sprawled out on the floor watching the news, as he was want to do.
I remember thinking it was a funny word I had just heard and it seemed to cause tension in the faces and voices of the news anchors on tv and in my parents. So, I asked my mother what this word "abortion" meant.
When my mother said, "it's when a pregnant woman kills her baby," there was nothing my mother could do to soften the blow. Maybe it had something to do with be just a half decade removed from the womb, I don't know, but I was incredulous.
Crushed, crying, and red-faced I asked, "who is in favor of that!?" My mother responded that generally Democrats were. So I asked, "well, who is against that?" My mother responded that, generally, Republicans were. So I said, "well, then...I'm a Republican." I still remember how distraught I was. Yes, I was crying, but deep inside I felt violent emotions that were so powerful that I was unable to express them at all. The tears I shed didn't accurately communicate my emotions, but they were all I could manage.
I remember going to bed, and as I remember those emotions, I remember feeling as if my humanity had been perversely violated by the very idea that anyone could do such a thing. Perhaps Adam and Eve felt that emotion when the ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - as they came to know what evil was.
Of course, as I grew, I discovered that the political party that was right on an issue of such basic civility was, to no surprise, right on a whole lot of other issues also, and that abortion wasn't the only bad idea that Democrats had. And today, I'm a Republican based upon a broad base of issues - which is why I would enthusiastically support Giuliani in the general election (well, any Republican, probably.)
But I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who I don't agree with on what originally brought me to the Republican Party at such a tender age. It would be a severe betrayal to that young boy.
Of course, my views on the subject have evolved slightly and become more sophisticated as I, a libertarian-leaning gay Republican who has personally been confronted with the reality that not all activity deemed immoral can or should be outlawed, concentrate on and struggle with the question of when liberty begins (with life or with the biological measurment of when liberty ends, brain activity?) - but they remain markedly and dramatically to the right of where Rudy Giuliani stands today.
I've been struggling between Romney and Giuliani as my favorite for a while now, but I'm afraid that it's just got to be Romney in the primary for me right now. I know that he hasn't always been pro-life, but when I see his videos on his website and read his message on a wide range of issues that are important to me, it sounds exactly what I want to buy. Additionally, his leadership skills, while not challenged to the same degree that Giuliani's were on 9/11/2001, seem to be superb from his performance in saving the Salt Lake Winter Olympics to setting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on firm financial footing.
So I - as a member of a Christian denomination that technically classifies Mormanism as a cult - am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. We will see how he holds up over the course of the campaign as to whether or not my loyalty remains with Romney, but just as Rudy doesn't see anything moving him away from being pro-choice or being against even the partial-birth abortion ban, I just don't see anything moving me towards someone who holds those positions in the GOP primary.
After the primary, I'll support whoever the GOP nominee is in the general election. And if it is Giuliani, I will support him enthusiastically over any Democrat rival.
Elections are about choices, and they have consequences. So I will make my choices in the primary and general elections accordingly. I think we would all be well advised to do the same.
The principles vs. political pragmatism is something I've been struggling with for a long time, and specifically, the question of whether or not I would vote for Giuliani in a primary.
My conclusion is that I would, because as important as Abortion is as an issue to me as an Evangelical Christian, winning the war against Islamic Jihad is more important.
Although I enthusiastically support Governor Romney who is both pro-life and capable of winning the War on Terror, your statement "Elections are about choices, and they have consequences." leads me to conclude that if I thought Giuliani was the only one who could defeat Edwards/Clinton, I'd vote for him in a primary over a pro-lifer.
Thankfully, we have Romney, eh?
If I didn't think that Romney could effectively prosecute the War on Terror, I would not be supporting him. That's part of the reason that I think that executive experience is so important in this election - which is part of the reason I was down to Giuliani and Romney in the first place.
I think that Romney's record of excelling as a private and public sector executive is every bit as sterling as Giuliani's - even though Giuliani certainly has been tried more than Romney was and thrived in a situation that was exceedingly difficult. That should not be downplayed, and to be honest, I think Giuliani would do slightly better on that level than Romney would. That said, however, I don't think that the marginal difference between them is so great as to offset the other problems I have with Giuliani on the social side of the political spectrum.
I think that Romney would do just fine.
Giuliani could beat her
And the federal govt can't do a whole lot about abortion, anyway, until we have more conservative Justices on the Court to overturn or limit Roe. Giuliani is as likely to appoint conservative Justices as any other candidate.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
1. I obviously disagree that Romney would lose to Hillary. People don't really know Mitt Romney yet, but I see a real star quality in him that I think will vastly outshine Hillary Clinton and make her look like an absolutely dour and boring candidate.
2. The signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the vetoing of the Embryonic Stem Cell Research bills are prime examples of something that would not have happened under a President Giuliani.
3. While I believe that Giuliani would nominate strict constructionist judges, I believe that Romney would be slightly more likely to nominate judges that would be more inclined to overturn bad precedent than perhaps Giuliani would. As I've said, I suspect that Kozinski and Mahoney would be high on Giuliani's lists, and I don't think either would overturn Roe. I think we could do better out of Romney - or at least no worse.
I think Mitt or Rudy can beat Hillary.
If trends continue, there is a good chance neither of them will face Hillary anyway.
I know too many "moderate" women (which generally means they don't follow politics and are usually fuzzy about candidate positions) who just don't like Rudy at all. He's harsh, and rough edged. Unless there is another terrorist threat that scares them into wanting a man to protect them they will not vote for Rudy.
Many of them don't particulary care for Hillary, but many do seem to admire her for "dealing with such a difficult situation" (her husband's affair).
I know Rudy is popular- as the former Mayor of New York- he will not be nearly as popular as the Republican candidate for President.
Currently our strongest candidates are McCain and Romney.
Remember that it was Hillary's status as the "Wronged Women" that revived her political viability after the disaster of Hillarycare and Travelgate. I think that against her, Rudy's own marital troubles would sink him with the suburban women set.
Hillary's problems with men (and a whole lot of women) are going to be much worse. She is an extremely dislikable character that people already feel very strongly about. I'm not really all that concerned about Hillary. She's got the cutthroat political skills, but that is all she's got. There are far scarier nominees they could find.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I just don't think she'll be the nominee...
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
I am dying to find a candidate to be excited about, but Rudy is not the one.
In reading authors urging that Guiliani would be great for the pro-life cause (if not also the cause for traditional marriage and the right to bear arms), I am reminded of a remark Lincoln made in response to the suggestion that the re-election of Stephen Douglas would actually serve the antislavery cause:
"Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today than he was yesterday-that he may rightfully | change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us-he does not pretend to be-he does not promise ever to be."
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and tooth. less one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He does not care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade-how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free"-unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.
Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today than he was yesterday-that he may rightfully | change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us-he does not pretend to be-he does not promise ever to be.
Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I am in the same boat that abortion brought me to the GOP & I learned about the other stuff later. As a leader, Giuliani is my favorite of the "big three" but because of the abortion issue I may support McCain or Romney instead. Of course, whomever receives the GOP nod I'll be voting for....
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
all conservatives, remember we are a minority, most of the people I talk to either don't care or are pro-choice. I am emphatically against abortion, but I will vote for Rudy, he is the most sell-able of all the candidates the Republicans have.
We don't elect presidents because of issues or slogans any longer. We elect the best package, the star of the arena. Like the hotdogman's customers often say, "They're all crooks anyway". The average Joe could give a hoot about abortion or any issue for that matter. It's who they like, and they like the guy that is sold best to them.
Believe me, there are no average Joe's here at RedState. The average Joe would rather suffer unsalted pretzels with his beer, then go to a place such as this and try and write some meaningful dialog.
Managing Editor
Mitt Romney is a man of incredible intelligence, wit, and charm. Additionally, as a venture capitalist, he was able to position companies in such a way that he has enriched himself to the tune of half a billion dollars. That's no small feat.
I'm extremely confident that Mitt Romney probably knows more about the American voter than any other candidate because he has become intimiately familiar with the American CONSUMER like no other candidate. If anyone knows how to position himself in a market, it's Mitt Romney. In fact, my biggest concern is that I'm simply being sold in the primary only to be sold out in the general election. LOL.
But I really seriously hope that that's not the case, and I don't think that it is.
Mitt Romney will connect with the American voter just like he's been able to connect with the American consumer - and I think that he will garner the same extremely successful results as he did marketing Staples' office supplies, Domino's pizza, and Brookstone's cool and weird eletronic gizmos.
You are all absolutly right. Any Republican takes my vote over any Democrat in the general election. But am I the only one holding out for Newt Gingrich to run. Granted, he has made no offical declaration of his candidacy, but everything he is doing is pointing towards a run for the oval office. Hes taking donations, stepping up public and media appearances, and will not declare that he is not running. Personally, I would take Newt over any of the other three (Rudy, McCain, Romney).
If there were any candidates today who I could just will into the White House, I'd probably go with Newt, Mike Pence, or Kenneth Blackwell. But with either Newt or McCain at the top of the ticket, I think we give up a strategic advantage - a candidate who is fresh. And with Newt we eliminate a strategic disadvantage of Hillary's - a candidate with high negatives.
I think that the public is tired. They want something new, fresh, and exciting. As a member of the senate for the past 6 years (almost 8 years come on Election Day,) Hillary does not fit this mold. If we nominate Newt or McCain for the top of the ticket, we give up this advantage because they are heavily identified with Washington as well.
In Romney and Giuliani, we get a fresh face that is also an extremely articulate and charismatic, exceedingly intelligent and experienced executive hand who people will like and can trust to come in and run the government without also balancing that against a lot of negative baggage from their own personal memories of either in office. Well, at least not in states that the GOP has much hope of winning, anyway.
If Giuliani is the nominee, then Newt would be my first preference for VP to help shore up the conservative base and really put me at ease.
Also, while I want a conservative GOP nominee, I also really want to win this election because I think that the consequences of a Clinton/Obama/Edwards presidency for this nation - especially while we're at war with Islamofascists - would be absolutely DIRE.
To me, the guy who sounds the most conservative and who I also think can capitalize on the current political environment in a race against Hillary the most is Mitt Romney.
See here:
Mr. Giuliani, Please Don't Run
This is still my official position, although I must say that Giuliani has been looking better and better to me. His position on judges is better than I expected.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Did you really just compare Romney's handling of the SLC Winter Olympic scandal to the way Giuliani handled 9/11???
I can't believe what I'm reading. This site is turning into Romney campaign headquarters.
------------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
While I by no means intend to demean Guiliani, what exactly did he do on 9/11 other than provide a calm centerpoint while the world went to hell in a handbasket around him? He didn't board a fighter jet and fend off attacking MiGs, he didn't devise a strategy to defeat the enemy before more lives were lost. He held a press conference, urged calm, and then began the (ultimately futile) rescue attempt.
Part of the mythology surrounding Rudy is his leadership that day. "America's Mayor" we dubbed him, and simply by keeping his cool when others were losing their heads, he is deemed presidential material. That's an excellent quality to have, and essential for the Commander-in-Chief, but it's by no means the end all and be all. For Rudy, it seems all he has to offer.
Romney, on the other hand, is a proven executive with a broad, articulate, conservative agenda to offer the voters, has proven able to work around a hostile legislature (an important trait for whoever we nominate in 2008, given the Democratic control of Congress), and most importantly, is not asking conservatives to compromise on, not just abortion, but gay marriage and gun control as well.
I'm not a MittHead by any stretch of the imagination, though I'm leaning his way at the moment. I'm concerned about his possible flip-flopping and the charges of political opportunism, but right now, he's the only viable conservative candidate in the Republican field. If it seems RedState is becoming the Romney campaign headquarters, it's for that reason, and no other.
While all that you say may be true, I think that you're underestimating how difficult those tasks are in the middle of a chaotic event - the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor - in the middle of 9 million people.
Rudy also did a great job in shutting down crime and rejuvinating America's largest city (it would be the 11th largest state or so all by itself) after liberals had basically run it into the ground and made it only slightly more safe than Baghdad today. He cemented his legacy by getting Michael Bloomberg to switch party affiliations and run for mayor as a Republican. While he hasn't been quite as conservative as Rudy was, he has done a good job in continuing what Rudy started. To me, that shows a shepherd who cares for his flock.
And no, I'm not comparing the Winter Olympics to 9/11. What I'm saying is that the character and profile in leadership that Romney has displayed lead me to believe that he would have done AT LEAST as good a job in turning NYC around and handling 9/11. There is something to be said for ACTUALLY having been through that as opposed to seeing how a man handled other difficult situations to project how he might handle a real human crises, but...I feel very comfortable that Mitt Romney would be an amazing leader if we experience times of trial or tribulation in the future.
Given his robust pro-growth economic plans, though, I don't think those trials will involve anything to do with a slowing American economy.
But in order not to rehash a lot of this, some time ago streiff had a post where many of us tossed around quite a bit of info, the link is below
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_devil_i_know
There you will find links and assorted information pro and con about Rudy that will give you more in depth knowledge about a man that seemingly you have scant knowledge of.
While no he didn't hop in a fighter plane to do battle with mig fighters, where the average "dogfight" is 10 seconds, I suspect he's in the fight (GWOT) to win.
Compare his response to Mayor Nagin's planning (he had advance notice) and response. And Nagin isn't even a bad guy as big city mayors go... he is better than average. How do you think the crack smoker from DC would've handled it? Or the morons who run dozens of other large cities would've handled it?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I like Rudy. I like Romney. I love Newt. I think all three would be good in the White House - Newt would be great if he could actually get there. In any other year, either might be my first choice in the Primary.
But not this year. I've got this huge man-crush on John McCain. He's got my support unless he drops out.
Is my ticket, or vise versa.
Can anyone point me to some links as to why Newt is so unelectable or perhaps do a post that ravages him to no end so I can finally be done with hoping that others will see him as the possible saviour I hope him to be.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
although I think Newt would be a good *** something *** as far as getting things done.
Chief of Staff maybe?
Abortion is my number one issue and I understand what you're going through.
Having said that, Guiliani is currently my #2 behind Romney.
The reason is the phase at where we stand in the abortion battle -- namely, at the Supreme Court level.
So what I want to know is if a potential president is going to nominate strict constructionist judges to the CCA and the Supreme Court.
I have no real doubts about Romney doing that.
With Guiliani, I think he will simply because he's always been a law and order kind of guy.
With McCain .. uhh.. I'm not sure. He has been pro-life, but with this anti-interrogation and anti-free-speech legislation still wandering through the courts, I'm not sure I'd trust him on this issue. He might go for someone a little squishy who might find for some of the stuff that he's in favor of.
There's others who I would be fine with as well provided they pick up some steam on fund raising / polling such as Gilmore or Gingrich.
Not so keen on others right now.
I agree with Ann Coulter, I not supporting a Pro-Abort GOP candidate for President in 2008 (or ever). Rudy also made it quite clear he'd like to grab guns so he's out. If you want a Democrat please go ahead and switch parties...besides their candidates are getting much more media attention anyways. :-(
calls the "Roe effect" that is a big advatage to the GOP.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006913
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
he's on with Wolf Blitzer right now, but says he wouldn't even vote for Rudy in the general because of abortion. I'm in between. I wouldn't enthusiastically vote for him ever, but I would almost certainly vote for him in the general, though I would be tempted if there were a good third party candidate.