New York Congressman Vito Fossella today has lent his endorsement to Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008, which, despite Fossella being a Catholic New Yorker with a funny name, actually might help boost Rudy’s prospects amongst conservatives.
Fossella is known as one of the most conservative (particularly socially conservative) politicians in the state, who, with the single exception of supporting stem cell research on aborted fetuses that would otherwise be discarded, holds so-con views on everything from abortion to family values in public schools to gun rights to faith based initiatives, and everything in between.? Fossella boasts a 0% rating from NARAL, a 9% rating from the ACLU, a B+ from the NRA, an 81% from the Christian Coalition, and a lifetime 87% rating from the American Conservative Union, which makes him the third most conservative congressman in the state.
After socially liberal Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA) threw her support behind Rudy yesterday, there was much discussion?here on Race42008 that more socially liberal Republicans would flock to the Rudy banner and damage all the headway that Rudy has been making amongst conservatives, but it appears that Rudy really is heading to be the “big-tent candidate,” with a nice array of conservative and Republican supporters from across the spectrum.
More endorsements like those of Vito Fossella (and especially more like Pat Robertson and Jim Nussle) will immeasurably help Rudy gain street cred with the so-cons.? Fosselli is set to be Rudy’s liaison to Capitol Hill for 2008.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Rudy is the only candidate that can save the GOP in 2008!!!!
January 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
[...] post by Woodrow Eisenhower and software by Elliott [...]
January 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Rudy is the candiate that can DESTROY the GOP in 2008. Nominating a pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-gun candidate would be the end of the Republican party as we know it. What a friggin’ joke.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Coming from New York`s 13th, I can tell you that Rep. Fossella is no conservative. Being conservative by New York standards means next to nothing. That`s not to call him liberal, but he`s one of the Congressmen who is more concerned with bringing home the bacon rather than actually making national policy. I doubt that this will make much difference to anyone, except perhaps in his own district, where he is very well liked.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Paul S,
Do you really think that the entire American conservative movement hinges on such a small slice of issues? What about faith and values and belief in God, upholding heterosexual marriage, a constructionist judiciary, a strong national defense, defeating global terror, fiscal discipline, cutting taxes, reforming welfare into workfare, upping the bar for education, promoting more school choices, cracking down on crime and drugs, cleaning up Main Street USA, promoting and easing adoption processes, protecting children from predators, ending quotas and affirmative action legislation…? What about all of those things?
And even with Rudy’s personal pro-choice stance taken into account, Rudy himself as said he doesn’t like abortion and that abortions need to be replaced with an alternative like adoption. A President Giuliani would be no worse for the American pro-life movement than a President McCain or Romney, and definitely a President HRC or Obama or Edwards. Rudy is the staunchest supporter of strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds out of the whole pack, and he has specifically named Roberts and Alito as ideal justices, and Scalia as an ideal chief justice. With a Supreme Court like that, Rudy’s personal views on the issue don’t matter–it’s the way he makes policy that matters. As NYC Mayor, Rudy never made ANY real proactive attempt to support abortion in his policy-making, and even the most conservative political leaders in NY will attest to that. If you think that being pro-choice alone means destruction of the Republican Party, then I wonder what you think of Barry Goldwater, also pro-choice, and Ronald Reagan, pro-choice until he decided to run for President…
Rudy’s policy decisions concerning gun control were also largely based on the circumstances of a very specific location: New York City. With a city as geographically unique as NYC (being spread out on literal islands, with various bottleneck choke points that make it perfect for the Mafia or gangs or illegal arms dealers to take control of an entire neighborhood), the policies Rudy enacted in that limited area were completely necessary. Plus, with a Supreme Court full of Scalias, is there really any question as to whether the Second Amendment will be upheld in a Giuliani administration?
And as for gay rights, I continually wonder why that is so anathema to Republican conservatives. I am a gay rights supporter because I am a human rights supporter, and I hope that you are too. Pro-gay rights is not equal to pro-gay marriage, especially in the case of Rudy Giuliani, who has called traditional marriage between one man and one woman “inviolate.”
What’s going to “DESTROY the GOP in 2008″ is if we get so picky that we end up nominating someone who passes all of our litmus tests spick and span and then loses the White House in a landslide. What we need is a conservative who can win. That’s what Rudy is.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Sean,
In what way exactly is Fossella not a conservative? As far as I see, he’s pro-life, anti-affirmative action, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoptions, pro-family/Christian values, pro-Second Amendment, pro-school vouchers, fiscally prudent, pro-tax cuts, pro-Patriot Act, pro-defense spending, pro-faith based initiatives, tough on crime, tough on drugs, and in our camp on health care, privatizing social security, free trade, and Iraq.
How is he “no conservative”? As someone much more familiar with Fossella than I, perhaps you can enlighten me.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I happen to think Rudy Giuliani could well hurt the Pro-Life movement myself, though not in the manner I believe Paul anticipates. I think nominating a pro-choice Republican effectively takes the issue out of the realm of debate. How many Democrats screamed fair trade after Clinton adopted free trade as a hallmark of his campaign and presidency? It is only now, when the Republican Party is falling apart, that Democrats feel free to revert to their protectionist ways. When you take an issue out of the realm of public debate in that manner, you decrease the likelihood that people are going to vote on the basis of a person’s position on that issue. How many people cite trade as a significant concern in their presidential candidates? How many did prior to 92? I think a Republican Party where holding a pro-life position is no longer a de-facto requirement for Presidential nomination is in for a rude awakening when they discover that, other then a handful of issues, social conservatives have very little in common with the rest of the Republican Party. And when, after they’ve finished holding their noses for Rudy due to his starpower, they abandon their monolithic support of the GOP, we’re going to find ourselves with no realistic formula to a stable majority, or even a competitive minority. I’m willing to vote for Rudy and believe he’d be an excellent president. But all things considered, I think the Republican party would be better served nominating a pro-life candidate (even if the person’s credentials on judges were less clear).
January 25th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Woodrow: A President Giuliani would be no worse for the American pro-life movement than a President McCain or Romney…
Really? How would pro-partial-birth-abortion Giuliani influence the following?
1. Child Custody Protection Act
2. Partial Birth Abortion Ban
3. Born Alive Infants Protection Act
4. Unborn Victims of Violence Act
5. International aid for abortions (Mexico City policy)
6. Domestic funding for family planning programs which promote abortion
7. Federal funds to the U.N. Population Fund
8. Influence on the public debate through the bully pulpit
But I generally agree with you Woody. This isn’t the only thing we should judge a candidate on. I find not too much comfort in the fact that under Rudy’s administration NYC general obligation debt swelled from $26.6 billion to $43 billion. These days NYC pays over 20 cents of every dollar just to cover the interest.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Matt,
The real issue here, or so I think, in regards to abortion is not a political one. What’s at stake here is the lives of millions of human beings–children–living, thinking, feeling people with beating hearts. When this is considered, I think we have to ask ourselves: What’s more important? The GOP suffering political damage or saving the lives of the unborn? If we nominate a “pro-life” Republican who’s sketchy on judges, we run the risk of keeping the pro-life flank firmly in place in the GOP, which helps Republicans politically, but endangers the progress we’ve made in protecting the unborn. If we nominate a “pro-choice” Republican who’s a bulwark on conservative/constructionist judges, we run the risk of suffering political fall-out when the uber-cons leave (those who would leave the GOP over a Rudy nomination are far fewer and far more fringe than the webroots would have us believe), but making real life progress in the battle to ensure that the unborn receive their constitutional right to live.
I’m not accusing you of being superficial or overly political or unconcerned with the real lives that are at stake in the abortion battle, Matt, believe me, but I think sometimes we just need to shift our perspective. A Rudy nomination might make some Republicans mad, but it would do more to save the unborn because of Rudy’s stances on judges (and the Supreme Court is the real frontline in this battle here, which we all know).
January 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
murphy,
From what I’ve seen of Rudy, he is someone who personally intensely dislikes the act of abortion, a libertarian federalist who thinks that the federal government should not press one way or the other, and someone who never made any policy decisions as NYC mayor to actively promote/support/further abortion in NYC.
Going down the list:
1. CCPA > Rudy is pro-family. There’s no doubt about that. I can easily see him upholding the CCPA, not as an abortion issue per se, but as a family issue. The parents should be involved in this, and any person who takes a minor across state lines in circumvention of their parents’ wishes is wrong.
2. PBA Ban > With the PBA Ban already in place, I can see Rudy pulling a reverse-Romney, simply leaving it alone, saying that while, as NYC Mayor, he did not support it when it was being discussed, he would gladly uphold it now that it is the law of the land.
3. BAIPA > The consequences of not having the BAIPA are horrendous, and I can’t see Rudy ever supporting removing such a common sense piece of legislation. Regardless of pro-life or pro-choice tags, the BAIPA has great bipartisan support.
4. UVVA > It would be unthinkable for Rudy to get rid of the UVVA–harming babies still in the womb is, and should be, illegal and of the greatest consequences regardless of your views on when life begins.
5. Int. aid for abortions > I think it’s more likely Rudy would take the Condi approach on this. While he might be pro-choice personally, he doesn’t think taxpayer dollars should be used to fund something people feel so strongly about–much the way Rudy cut taxpayer funding to the Brooklyn Art Museum for their dung-covered Madonna exhibit.
6. Pro-Abortion Family Planning > Ditto on #5. I think it’s far more likely Rudy would take the Condi approach on this as well–regardless of your views, taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund something so many taxpayers feel so morally strongly against.
7. Fed funds to the UNPF > Ditto on #5 and 6.
8. Bully pulpit > Which actually has very little influence. Just take a look at how often “pro-life” Bush has used his bully pulpit to help influence the abortion debate. I can probably count the occasions on one hand. The real battle takes place on the Supreme Court, and that’s where it will be won, with strict constructionist judges.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Woody, I suspect that you may be right about #1, and definitely right about #3, but I have my doubts about the others. Has he spoken to any of the abortion issues unrelated to judges? I’m not particularly impressed with a candidate who says abortion is bad but would also finance his daughter’s partial-birth abortion.
My impressions of things are:
Rudy: solid on judges, pro-abortion rights on laws
Romney: solid on judges, pro-life on laws
McCain: maverik on judges, pro-life on laws
As for the bully pulpit, it shouldn’t be dismissed just because Bush isn’t very effective at it. Rudy wants to remove the pro-life plank from the GOP after all.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
murphy,
I’m not a Rudy expert (little help here from the R408 Rudyites?
) so I can’t pinpoint if he’s ever come straight out and said anything like “I’d support the PBA Ban as the pre-existing law of the land” or “I’d decrease/abolish federal funding for abortion,” but I do know that Rudy was very clear during the Brooklyn Art Museum fiasco that he believes taxpayers should haven’t to unwillingly fund something they feel so strongly morally against. I can see him finding common ground with pro-lifers in the primary who don’t want to increase federal funding for programs that support/propose abortion as an option.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if Rudy made the small step of coming out against PBA for the ’08 race. Who knows how 9/11, cancer, & age and wisdom have changed him since he supported not banning PBA back in the 90′s.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Woodrow,
Sure. Fossella supported five of the Democrat`s First 100 Hours initiatives, including the minimum wage hike, stem-cell research (which you mentioned), their prescription drug bill, and the implementation of the 9/11 Commission`s recommendations. He also supported the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 and supports a path to citizenship for illigal immigrants. He`s also a supporter of a number of wasteful spending projects, including pork that he brings back to the district and funding for things like the NEA. Rep. Fossella has never been in the foreground of any domestic fight of importance to conservatives.
Let me be clear that I`m not saying anyone would be better off with a Democrat in the seat, or that his voting record isn`t more conservative than most of the rest of New York`s delegation (not that that says a lot), but saying that the endorsement really means anything from a national conservative policy standpoint is really stretching it.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“he believes taxpayers should haven’t to unwillingly fund something they feel so strongly morally against. ”
What kind of nonsense is that? Are we going to have moral exceptions to taxpaying? Do you really want to go there, cuz I gotta tell you, there are lots of people who have sincere moral objections to a lot of the things you guys support.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Tano,
There`s a world of difference between the things a country needs for its survival, e.g. a military, and discretionary matters.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Tano, I must say that while ideological diversity isn’t a bad thing, you never seem to add anything constructive to these debates.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Murphy,
You write that “Rudy wants to remove the pro-life plank from the GOP after all.”
I’ve never heard this before and was wondering if you have a cite. If true (not that I doubt a fellow R4’08er), how can any pro-life Republican support him?
January 25th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Come on, guys. Do you really think Rudy is going to make your job that easy? Do you really think he’s going to come out in favor of removing the pro-life plank from the party platform?
He’ll probably say that he understands he’s applying to lead the pro-life party, and he’s not going to try to change that, even though he knows that we all know that he’s personally pro-choice.
As I once said, the personally pro-choice/anti-Roe Republican is the equivalent of the Bill Clinton-style personally pro-life/pro-Roe Democrat. The latter doesn’t support abortion but thinks the law shouldn’t be changed, i.e., thinks abortions should be legal. The former personally thinks abortions should be legal but is willing to allow Roe to be overturned, which could result in the law being changed.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
DaveG,
Rudy co-chaired an event called the “Choice Award Presentations” in 2000 for a group called the “Republican Pro-Choice Coalition.” That coalition is lobbying to have the pro-life plank of the GOP platform removed.
While it’s not Rudy personally saying it himself, it must give one pause and cause you to question the ties he chooses.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
He may “dislike” abortion personally, but he does seem to be doing all he can to support it.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
DaveG: Do you really think he’s going to come out in favor of removing the pro-life plank from the party platform?
Well, here’s Rudy’s full address in April of 2001 as he gratiously accepted an award from NARAL. http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Add this to Rudy’s co-chairing of the “Choice Award Presentations” in 2000, and his many many comments about supporting public financing of abortions and partial birth abortion.
I have no doubt whatsoever that regardless of what judges he promises to appoint, Rudy Giuliani means to remove the pro-life plank of the GOP.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
It’s shows his “conservatism” when he says those nice things about Margaret Sanger the eugenicist.
“At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.”
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html